Gastelum v. Pinnacle Hotel Circle LP

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 10 11 FERNANDO GASTELUM, an individual, Case No.: 21-CV-1458 JLS (DEB)

12 Plaintiff, ORDER STRIKING PLAINTIFF’S 13 v. MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 14 PINNACLE HOTEL CIRCLE LP dba

Comfort Inn and Suites San Diego Zoo 15 (ECF No. 36) SeaWorld Area, 16 Defendant. 17 18 19 Presently before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 20 36). The Motion was filed without Plaintiff first obtaining a hearing date from chambers, 21 in violation of Civil Local Rules 7.1(b) and 7.1(f)(1). “The requirement that a party obtain 22 a hearing date from the judge’s clerk is no empty formality; it is a rule of substantial 23 importance. Under Civil Local Rule 7.1(e)(1)–(3), the hearing date sets in motion a 24 calendar for the filing of opposition and reply briefs.” Kashin v. Kent, No. 25 02CV2495LAB(WMC), 2007 WL 1975435, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 26, 2007), aff’d, 342 F. 26 App’x 341 (9th Cir. 2009). Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the Civil Local Rules is 27 grounds to reject the filing. See id. at *2; see also S.D. Cal. CivLR 83.1(a) (providing that 28 failure to comply with the Civil Local Rules “may be grounds for imposition by the Court 1 any and all sanctions authorized by statute or rule or within the inherent power of the 2 ||Court”’). Accordingly, the Court STRIKES the Motion for failure to comply with this 3 || District’s Civil Local Rules. Plaintiff MAY REFILE the Motion in accordance with 4 || appropriate Court procedures. 6 Dated: May 18, 2023 jae LL mrmaitene- 7 on. Janis L. Sammartino g United States District Judge 9 10 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28