Martin

(PC) Ardds v. Martin

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaDecember 1, 20212:20-cv-00133California482 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 ANTOINE L. ARDDS, No. 2:20-cv-0133 TLN KJN P Plaintiff, v. ORDER KENNETH MARTIN, et al., Defendants. 16 On October 22, 2021, defendants filed a motion for summary judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. Plaintiff did not oppose the motion. Local Rule 230(l) provides in part: “Failure of the responding party to file written opposition or to file a statement of no opposition may be deemed a waiver of any opposition to the granting of the motion . . . .” Id. On August 17, 2021 (ECF No. 35), and on October 22, 2021 (ECF No. 36-1), plaintiff was advised of the requirements for filing an opposition to a motion and that failure to oppose such a motion may be deemed a waiver of opposition to the motion. See Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952, 957 (9th Cir. 1998) (en banc), and Klingele v. Eikenberry, 849 F.2d 409, 411-12 (9th Cir. 1988). Local Rule 110 provides that failure to comply with the Local…

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.