Seyed Saeid Zamanieh Shahri v. Los Rios Community College District

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: January 14, 2026
• Docket: 2:23-cv-01569
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 SEYED SAEID ZAMANIEH SHAHRI, Case No. 2:23-cv-1569-DJC-JDP (PS) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 LOS RIOS COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT, 15 Defendant. 16

17 18 On January 7, 2026, the court issued a discovery and scheduling order. ECF No. 80. 19 Prior to that, however, on December 30, 2025, plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment. 20 ECF No. 76. Shortly thereafter, defendants filed an ex parte application and motion to continue 21 or deny plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment. ECF Nos. 77 & 78. Plaintiff opposes 22 defendants’ motion. ECF No. 81. Because plaintiff’s motion was filed before the scheduling 23 order issued, and the parties have not had the opportunity to engage in discovery, plaintiff’s 24 motion is denied without prejudice as premature, and defendants’ motions are denied as 25 unnecessary.1 26 1 Although the Federal Rules to not prohibit a party from seeking early summary 27 judgment, considering this district’s heavy caseload, it would not be an inefficient use of this court’s limited judicial resources to address plaintiff’s motion prior to completion of discovery. 28 To find otherwise would likely result in need to consider successive motion for summary ] Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that: 2 1. Plaintiffs motion for summary judgment, ECF No. 76, is DENIED as premature. 3 2. Defendants’ ex parte application and motion to continue, ECF Nos. 77 & 78, are 4 | DENIED as unnecessary. 5 6 IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: _ January 14, 2026 \E Ss 8 JEREMY D. PETERSON 9 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 | —___ judgment, leading to piecemeal adjudication of this case. See Hoffman v. Tonnemacher, 593 F.3d 25 908, 911 (9th Cir. 2010) (holding that because “of the potential for abuse of the procedure[,] . . 26 || district courts retain discretion to “weed out frivolous or simply repetitive motions”); □□□□□□□□ Fin. Corp. v. Zimmerman, 296 F.2d 797, 799 (Sth Cir. 1961) (federal courts “do not approve in 27 || general the piecemeal consideration of successive motions for summary judgment, since” the parties should “be held to the requirement that they present their strongest case for summary 28 | judgment when the matter is first raised”).