Marani

Marani v. Cramer

Good Law
United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaSeptember 20, 20234:19-cv-05538California654 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9 KEVIN MARANI, Case No.: 19-CV-5538 YGR

ORDER PROVIDING RAND NOTICE TO PRO SE

Plaintiff, DEFENDANTS REGARDING REQUIREMENTS

FOR OPPOSING SUMMARY JUDGMENT

v. Re: Dkt. No. 139

MICHAEL CRAMER, ET AL.,

14 Defendants. 15 Plaintiff Kevin Marani has filed a Motion for Summary Judgment as to defendants Michael Cramer, Florence Cramer, Mark Cramer, and Scott Cramer. Ninth Circuit authority indicates that self-represented parties should be given “notice of what is required of them in order to oppose” summary judgment motions at the time of filing of the motions. See Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952, 962-63 (9th Cir. 1998); Woods v. Carey, 684 F.3d 934, 935, 940-41 (9th Cir. 2012). Accordingly, the Court provides the following notice to the unrepresented defendants named in plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment: 23 Plaintiff is making a motion for summary judgment under Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure which, if granted, will end your case by granting judgment in…

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.