(PS) Olson v. Puckett

E.D. California

(PS) Olson v. Puckett

DecidedAugust 17, 2022

Docket2:21-cv-01482

StatusUnknown

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

Bluebook

(PS) Olson v. Puckett, (E.D. Cal. 2022).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 KIMBERLY OLSON, No. 2:21-CV-1482-KJM-DMC 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 ROBERT PUCKETT, SR., et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se, brings this civil action. Pending before the 18 Court is Plaintiff’s motion for summary adjudication, ECF No. 68, Defendants’ response thereto, 19 ECF No. 87, and Plaintiff’s reply, ECF No. 104. 20 Plaintiff’s motion is procedurally premature. As Defendants note in their 21 response, a motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint is currently pending. Thus, the pleadings are 22 not settled, Defendants have not answered or presented their defenses, and the case is not yet at 23 issue. A motion for summary judgment or adjudication filed at this stage in the proceedings 24 results in uncertainty as to which allegations are in dispute and which are not making it 25 impossible to evaluate which disputes might raise genuine issues of material fact. See Mohamed 26 v. Jeppesen Dataplan, Inc., 579 F.3d 943, 961, n.9 (9th Cir. 2009); see also Vining v. Runyon, 99 27 F.3d 1056, 1058 (11th Cir. 1996) (“A premature decision on summary judgment impermissibly 28 deprives the [defendants] of their right to utilize the discovery process to discover the facts 1 | necessary to justify their opposition to the motion’). 2 Because Plaintiff's motion for summary adjudication is premature procedurally 3 | given that the case is not yet at issue, the Court will strike it from the docket. The Court does so 4 | without expressing any opinion as to the merits of Plaintiff's motion and without prejudice to 5 | Plaintiff renewing her arguments at an appropriate time as ordered by the Court after Defendants 6 | have filed an answer and the case has been scheduled. 7 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for summary 8 | adjudication, ECF No. 68, is stricken and terminated as a pending motion, without prejudice to 9 | renewal at a later stage in the proceedings. 10 11 | Dated: August 16, 2022 Ssvcqo_ DENNIS M. COTA 13 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 14 15 16 17 18 19 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 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 KIMBERLY OLSON, No. 2:21-CV-1482-KJM-DMC 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 ROBERT PUCKETT, SR., et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se, brings this civil action. Pending before the 18 Court is Plaintiff’s motion for summary adjudication, ECF No. 68, Defendants’ response thereto, 19 ECF No. 87, and Plaintiff’s reply, ECF No. 104. 20 Plaintiff’s motion is procedurally premature. As Defendants note in their 21 response, a motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint is currently pending. Thus, the pleadings are 22 not settled, Defendants have not answered or presented their defenses, and the case is not yet at 23 issue. A motion for summary judgment or adjudication filed at this stage in the proceedings 24 results in uncertainty as to which allegations are in dispute and which are not making it 25 impossible to evaluate which disputes might raise genuine issues of material fact. See Mohamed 26 v. Jeppesen Dataplan, Inc., 579 F.3d 943, 961, n.9 (9th Cir. 2009); see also Vining v. Runyon, 99 27 F.3d 1056, 1058 (11th Cir. 1996) (“A premature decision on summary judgment impermissibly 28 deprives the [defendants] of their right to utilize the discovery process to discover the facts 1 | necessary to justify their opposition to the motion’). 2 Because Plaintiff's motion for summary adjudication is premature procedurally 3 | given that the case is not yet at issue, the Court will strike it from the docket. The Court does so 4 | without expressing any opinion as to the merits of Plaintiff's motion and without prejudice to 5 | Plaintiff renewing her arguments at an appropriate time as ordered by the Court after Defendants 6 | have filed an answer and the case has been scheduled. 7 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for summary 8 | adjudication, ECF No. 68, is stricken and terminated as a pending motion, without prejudice to 9 | renewal at a later stage in the proceedings. 10 11 | Dated: August 16, 2022 Ssvcqo_ DENNIS M. COTA 13 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

(PS) Olson v. Puckett, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ps-olson-v-puckett-caed-2022.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack