Theodore Heinemann, I v. Daniel Satterberg

Good Law
731 F.3d 914·2013 WL 5312568
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitSeptember 24, 201312-35404California1,849 words

Opinion

Opinion

Clifton, J.

This appeal presents the question of whether Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56, in its current form, prohibits a district court from granting a motion for summary judgment by default based upon a local court rule when an opposing party fails to respond. We conclude that it does.

In this case, in addition to citing such a local rule, the district court considered the motion on the merits and concluded that it should be granted. We agree and affirm the judgment.

I. Background

Theodore Heinemann was a passenger aboard a United Airlines flight from Amsterdam to Seattle via Chicago. Near the end of the flight, Heinemann was involved in an altercation with two flight attendants. Heinemann and the flight attendants told very different stories about the episode.

Heinemann alleged that he suffered a mild epileptic seizure just minutes prior to landing in Seattle, and that a flight attendant denied him access to the bathroom in this “emergency medical situation.” He further contended that as he was disembarking after his seizure, another flight attendant followed him out of the airplane “brandishing” an ice mallet. The flight attendants denied that Heinemann said anything…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.