Philippe Bachmann, et al. v. United States of America, et al.

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 PHILIPPE BACHMANN, et al., Case No. 22-cv-06250-ASK 8 Plaintiffs, ORDER GRANTING BURLESON 9 v. CONSULTING, INC.’S UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR SUMMARY 10 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al., JUDGMENT 11 Defendants. Re: Dkt. Nos. 94, 99

a 12

13 Defendant Burleson Consulting, Inc. (“Burleson”) has moved for summary judgment

Y 14 || under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 (“Rule 56”). Dkt. No. 94. Plaintiffs Phillipe Bachmann;

15 Megan Bachmann; J.B., a minor, by his guardian ad litem, Megan Bachmann; and H.B., a minor, 16 || by her guardian ad litem, Megan Bachmann (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) have submitted a non-

17 || opposition to Burleson’s motion. Dkt. No. 99. Zz 18 Rule 56(e) permits a district court to enter summary judgment against a party who fails to 19 || oppose issues raised in a motion for summary judgment if such a motion adequately contends that 20 || there are no triable issues of fact and such contention is unopposed. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e); □□□□□□ □□ 21 || Intuit, Inc., 318 F. App’x 483, 486 (9th Cir. 2008) (citation omitted). The Court finds that these 22 || conditions are satisfied here and grants Burleson’s motion. 23 24 IT IS SO ORDERED. 25 || Dated: February 3, 2026 26 . . 27 AJAY KRISHNAN 28 United States Magistrate Judge