Huerta v. Nielsen

S.D. California

Huerta v. Nielsen

DecidedApril 20, 2020

Docket3:18-cv-01640

StatusUnknown

This text of Huerta v. Nielsen (Huerta v. Nielsen) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Huerta v. Nielsen, (S.D. Cal. 2020).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DAVID HUERTA, Case No.: 18cv1640-MMA (LL)

12 Plaintiffs, ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF 13 v. COURT TO FILE PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION BRIEF; 14 NIELSEN, et al.,

15 Defendants. [Doc. No. 38-1]

16 VACATING MOTION HEARING 17 18 Plaintiff David Huerta is a Seized Property Specialist with United States Customs 19 and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security. He brings this action pro se 20 pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-16, which 21 protects federal employees from discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or 22 national origin. Plaintiff alleges that his supervisor racially discriminated and retaliated 23 against him. See Doc. No. 1. The government moves for summary judgment as to all 24 claims. See Doc. No. 33. The government’s motion is currently set for hearing on April 25 27, 2020. As such, Plaintiff’s response in opposition to the motion was due for filing on 26 or before April 13, 2020. See CIVLR 7.1.e.2. To date, the Court has not received any 27 submission from Plaintiff. However, Plaintiff served the government with an opposition 28 brief, which the government has attached as an exhibit to its reply brief. See Doc. No. 1 38-1. The proof of service accompanying Plaintiff's opposition brief indicates that he 2 a copy of the brief to the Clerk of Court via U.S. Mail. See id. at 13. 3 A summary judgment motion must be decided on the merits, and it “must be 4 denied on no other grounds than that the movant has failed to meet its burden of 5 || demonstrating the absence of triable issues.” Henry v. Gill Industries, Inc., 983 F.2d 943, 6 ||950 (9th Cir. 1993). A substantive response from Plaintiff will assist the Court in 7 || performing its duty. 8 Accordingly, in consideration of Plaintiff's pro se status and what appears to be a 9 || good faith attempt to timely submit his opposition brief, the Court ORDERS the Clerk of 10 || Court to file Plaintiff's opposition brief, Doc. No. 38-1, nunc pro tunc to April 7, 2020. 11 The matter is now fully briefed. The Court takes the government’s motion under 12 ||submission on the papers and without oral argument pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7.1.d.1. 13 || See Fed. R. Civ. P. 78(b). The Court VACATES the previously scheduled motion 14 ||hearing. No appearances are required. The Court will issue a written ruling in due 15 || course. 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. 17 ||} DATED: April 20, 2020 = Vt whl = ‘he 18 HON. MICHAEL M. ANELLO 19 United States District Judge

20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DAVID HUERTA, Case No.: 18cv1640-MMA (LL)

12 Plaintiffs, ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF 13 v. COURT TO FILE PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION BRIEF; 14 NIELSEN, et al.,

15 Defendants. [Doc. No. 38-1]

16 VACATING MOTION HEARING 17 18 Plaintiff David Huerta is a Seized Property Specialist with United States Customs 19 and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security. He brings this action pro se 20 pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-16, which 21 protects federal employees from discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or 22 national origin. Plaintiff alleges that his supervisor racially discriminated and retaliated 23 against him. See Doc. No. 1. The government moves for summary judgment as to all 24 claims. See Doc. No. 33. The government’s motion is currently set for hearing on April 25 27, 2020. As such, Plaintiff’s response in opposition to the motion was due for filing on 26 or before April 13, 2020. See CIVLR 7.1.e.2. To date, the Court has not received any 27 submission from Plaintiff. However, Plaintiff served the government with an opposition 28 brief, which the government has attached as an exhibit to its reply brief. See Doc. No. 1 38-1. The proof of service accompanying Plaintiff's opposition brief indicates that he 2 a copy of the brief to the Clerk of Court via U.S. Mail. See id. at 13. 3 A summary judgment motion must be decided on the merits, and it “must be 4 denied on no other grounds than that the movant has failed to meet its burden of 5 || demonstrating the absence of triable issues.” Henry v. Gill Industries, Inc., 983 F.2d 943, 6 ||950 (9th Cir. 1993). A substantive response from Plaintiff will assist the Court in 7 || performing its duty. 8 Accordingly, in consideration of Plaintiff's pro se status and what appears to be a 9 || good faith attempt to timely submit his opposition brief, the Court ORDERS the Clerk of 10 || Court to file Plaintiff's opposition brief, Doc. No. 38-1, nunc pro tunc to April 7, 2020. 11 The matter is now fully briefed. The Court takes the government’s motion under 12 ||submission on the papers and without oral argument pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7.1.d.1. 13 || See Fed. R. Civ. P. 78(b). The Court VACATES the previously scheduled motion 14 ||hearing. No appearances are required. The Court will issue a written ruling in due 15 || course. 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. 17 ||} DATED: April 20, 2020 = Vt whl = ‘he 18 HON. MICHAEL M. ANELLO 19 United States District Judge

20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Huerta v. Nielsen, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/huerta-v-nielsen-casd-2020.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack