Porter v. City of Seattle

CourtDistrict Court, W.D. Washington
DecidedMarch 14, 2024
Docket2:23-cv-00293
StatusUnknown

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

Bluebook
Porter v. City of Seattle, (W.D. Wash. 2024).

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 5 AT TACOMA 6 ANTONIO PORTER, Case No. 2:23-cv-293-JNW-TLF 7 Plaintiff, v. PRETRIAL SCHEDULING ORDER 8 CITY OF SEATTLE, 9 Defendants. 10

11 Pursuant to the Court’s March 13, 2024 Order Granting Defendants’ Motion to 12 Compel, and Order Granting Defendants’ Motion to Extend the dispositive motion 13 deadline (Dkt. 25, 26), the Court hereby establishes the following revised pretrial 14 schedule: 15 (1) Motions to Amend 16 Any motion to amend pleadings shall be filed by April 11, 2024. Pursuant to LCR 17 15, a party seeking to amend a pleading must attach the proposed amended pleading as 18 an exhibit to the motion. The party must also indicate how the proposed amended 19 pleading differs from the original pleading by highlighting the text that is added and 20 striking through the part that is deleted. 21 (2) Dispositive Motions 22 Any dispositive motion shall be filed and served by June 27, 2024. Pursuant to 23 LCR 7(b), any argument being offered in support of a motion shall be submitted as a part 24 1 of the motion itself and not in a separate document. The motion shall include in its caption 2 (immediately below the title of the motion) a designation of the date the motion is to be 3 noted for consideration upon the Court’s motion calendar. Dispositive motions shall be 4 noted for consideration on a date no earlier than the fourth Friday following filing and

5 service of the motion. 6 All briefs and affidavits in opposition to any motion shall be filed and served 7 pursuant to the requirements of Rule 7 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and LCR 8 7. The party making a motion may file and serve a reply to the opposing party’s briefs and 9 affidavits. Any reply brief shall also be filed and served pursuant to the requirements of 10 Rule 7 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and LCR 7. 11 Defendants are reminded that they MUST serve a Rand notice, in a separate 12 document, concurrently with motions to dismiss and motions for summary judgment so 13 that pro se plaintiffs will have fair, timely and adequate notice of what is required of them 14 in order to oppose those motions. Woods v. Carey, 684 F.3d 934, 941 (9th Cir. 2012).

15 The Ninth Circuit has set forth model language for such notices: 16 A motion for summary judgment under Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure will, if granted, end your case. 17 Rule 56 tells you what you must do in order to oppose a motion for summary 18 judgment. Generally, summary judgment must be granted when there is no genuine issue of material fact – that is, if there is no real dispute about any 19 fact that would affect the result of your case, the party who asked for summary judgment is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, which will end 20 your case. When a party you are suing makes a motion for summary judgment that is properly supported by declarations (or other sworn 21 testimony), you cannot simply rely on what your complaint says. Instead, you must set out specific facts in declarations, depositions, answers to 22 interrogatories, or authenticated documents, as provided in Rule 56(e), that contradict the facts shown in the defendant’s declarations and 23 documents and show that there is a genuine issue of material fact for trial. If you do not submit your own evidence in opposition, summary 24 1 judgment, if appropriate, may be entered against you. If summary judgment is granted, your case will be dismissed and there will be no 2 trial.

3 Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952, 963 (9th Cir. 1998) (emphasis added). Defendants who 4 fail to file and serve the required Rand notice on the plaintiff(s) may have their motion 5 stricken from the Court’s calendar with leave to re-file. 6 (3) Trial, Joint Pretrial Statement, and Expert Disclosures 7 A trial date and deadlines for serving expert disclosures and filing a Joint Pretrial 8 Statement may be established at a later date pending the outcome of any dispositive 9 motions. 10 (4) Proof of Service and Sanctions 11 All motions, pretrial statements, and other filings shall be accompanied by proof 12 that such documents have been served upon counsel for the opposing party or upon any 13 party acting pro se. The proof of service shall show the day and manner of service and 14 may be by written acknowledgment of service, by certificate of a member of the bar of this 15 Court, by affidavit of the person who served the papers, or by any other proof satisfactory 16 to the Court. Prisoners subject to the Court’s Mandatory E-Filing Project may comply with 17 this requirement by certifying as to the date the document(s) is handed to the law librarian 18 for scanning. Failure to comply with the provisions of the Order can result in 19 dismissal/default judgment or other appropriate sanctions. 20 (5) Extensions 21 The deadlines contained in this Order are firm and will not be extended by the 22 Court except upon application to the Court with a showing of good cause. See Fed. R. 23

24 1 Civ. P. 16(b)(4) (“A schedule may be modified only for good cause and with the judge’s 2 consent.”). 3 (6) Address 4 The parties are to promptly update the Court with any change of address or other

5 contact information. 6 (7) Instructions to Clerk 7 The Clerk of Court is directed to send a copy of this Order to plaintiff and to 8 counsel for defendants. 9 Dated this 14th day of March, 2024. 10 11 A 12 Theresa L. Fricke 13 United States Magistrate Judge

14 15 16 17 18

19 20 21 22 23 24

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

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Porter v. City of Seattle, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/porter-v-city-of-seattle-wawd-2024.