Re/max Mega Group v. Maxum Indemnity Company

MEMORANDUM

The district court did not abuse its discretion by striking plaintiff Re/Max Mega Group’s opposition to summary judgment, which was filed two to three days late in an improper format, after Re/Max had been admonished by the district court for filing its opposition papers late once before and warned that any future opposition must be timely filed. See Cusano v. Klein, 264 F.3d 936, 950-51 (9th Cir.2001). Rather than granting summary judgment as “a mere sanction for noncompliance with local rules,” Martinez v. Stanford, 323 F.3d 1178, 1182 (9th Cir.2003), the district court reviewed the evidence in the record and determined that defendant Maxum Indemnity Company had met its burden under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(a) of demonstrating that there was no genuine dispute as to any material fact and that Maxum was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See Cusano, 264 F.3d at 950-51 ; cf. Marshall v. Gates, 44 F.3d 722, 725 (9th Cir.1995). The district court was not required to consider whether Re/ Max’s delay in filing constituted “excusable neglect” under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) because a district court need not consider Rule 60(b) issues sua sponte…