Case 2:20-cv-11182-MRW Document 63 Filed 11/14/22 Page 1 of 2 Page ID #:819

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Case No. CV 20-11182 MRW Date November 14, 2022 Title Palacios v. County of Los Angeles

Present: Hon. Michael R. Wilner, U.S. Magistrate Judge James Muñoz n/a Deputy Clerk Court Reporter / Recorder Attorneys for Plaintiff: Attorneys for Defendant: n/a n/a Proceedings: ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

1. The County defendants moved for summary judgment in this civil rights action. (Docket # 59.) The motion is noticed for hearing on November 30. Under the Local Rules of Court, Plaintiffs’ responsive pleading was due 21 days before then, or by November 9. However, as Defendants note (Docket # 61), Plaintiffs failed to file anything in response to the motion by that date.1 2. Contrary to Defendants’ assertions (id. at 2), the Court is prohibited from granting a summary judgment motion merely because of a failure to file a timely opposition. However, I may well decline to accept a late filing from Plaintiffs. I may also find sufficient cause and evidence in the original motion to support the entry of judgment. Heinemann v. Satterberg, 731 F.3d 914, 916 (9th Cir. 2013). And, if Plaintiffs really don’t oppose the motion, the failure to do so likely violates Local Rule 7 and could lead to monetary sanctions. 3. Before I do that, though, Plaintiffs’ attorney should be heard. Mr. Peacock is ordered to show cause why this Court should not take any of these actions against his clients. He may discharge this order by filing a declaration (NTE four pages) plus Plaintiffs’ substantive response to the summary judgment motion by noon on Thursday, November 17.

1 To be clear, I think it’s a rather sharp practice to file a summary judgment motion on minimal notice like this. So, based in large part on the manner of the defense’s filing in this case, I’ve recently modified my personal procedures. Take a look at my portion of the Court’s website: I now require a summary judgment motion to be filed on 35 days notice to allow for a two-week period to prepare an opposition brief. That doesn’t help Mr. Peacock here, though.

CV-90 (10/08) CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Page 1 of 2 Case 2:20-cv-11182-MRW Document 63 Filed 11/14/22 Page 2 of 2 Page ID #:820

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Case No. CV 20-11182 MRW Date November 14, 2022 Title Palacios v. County of Los Angeles

4. After reviewing these filings, the Court will inform the parties about the status of the action and the Rule 56 motion.

CV-90 (10/08) CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Page 2 of 2