LYNCH v. L'OREAL USA S/D, INC., 11-cv-01343-RBJ-MWJ. (2012)
Court: District Court, D. Colorado
Number: infdco20120717857
Visitors: 6
Filed: Jul. 16, 2012
Latest Update: Jul. 16, 2012
Summary: ORDER R. BROOKE JACKSON, District Judge. The Court has reviewed the plaintiffs' response [Docket #32] to this Courts Order to Show Cause [Docket #31] as well as the defendants reply [Docket #33]. The Court will grant the plaintiffs until July 31, 2012 to file a response to the motion for summary judgment [Docket #29]. A motion for summary judgment claims that there are no genuine issues of material fact in dispute, and that the case can be resolved by the Court without a trial based upon issue
Summary: ORDER R. BROOKE JACKSON, District Judge. The Court has reviewed the plaintiffs' response [Docket #32] to this Courts Order to Show Cause [Docket #31] as well as the defendants reply [Docket #33]. The Court will grant the plaintiffs until July 31, 2012 to file a response to the motion for summary judgment [Docket #29]. A motion for summary judgment claims that there are no genuine issues of material fact in dispute, and that the case can be resolved by the Court without a trial based upon issues..
More
ORDER
R. BROOKE JACKSON, District Judge.
The Court has reviewed the plaintiffs' response [Docket #32] to this Courts Order to Show Cause [Docket #31] as well as the defendants reply [Docket #33]. The Court will grant the plaintiffs until July 31, 2012 to file a response to the motion for summary judgment [Docket #29]. A motion for summary judgment claims that there are no genuine issues of material fact in dispute, and that the case can be resolved by the Court without a trial based upon issues of law. See Rule 56, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The party opposing summary judgment must show (by affidavits, documents, deposition testimony or otherwise that there are issues of fact that are genuinely disputed and that are material to a resolution of the legal issues. The party cannot just rely on its pleadings in response to a motion for summary judgment. Plaintiffs' response to the motion for summary judgment, which was filed on March 27, 2012, was due approximately 21 days thereafter and is now significantly overdue. The Court grants this extension in deference to plaintiffs' pro se status but cannot give legal advice beyond explaining what a summary judgment motion is.
Source: Leagle
