Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Blankenchip v. CitiMortgage, Inc., 2:14-cv-02309 WBS-AC. (2016)

Court: District Court, E.D. California Number: infdco20160328631 Visitors: 5
Filed: Mar. 25, 2016
Latest Update: Mar. 25, 2016
Summary: ORDER WILLIAM B. SHUBB , District Judge . The parties have submitted a Stipulation (Docket No. 61) to continue the hearing on defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket No. 44) sixty days from the currently set date of April 18, 2016. The court cannot allow a dispositive motion to remain docketed for that length of time without a hearing. Accordingly, the court will consider the stipulation as an application under Rule 56(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and for the reasons
More

ORDER

The parties have submitted a Stipulation (Docket No. 61) to continue the hearing on defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket No. 44) sixty days from the currently set date of April 18, 2016. The court cannot allow a dispositive motion to remain docketed for that length of time without a hearing. Accordingly, the court will consider the stipulation as an application under Rule 56(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and for the reasons set forth in the stipulation finds that plaintiffs cannot present facts essential to justify their opposition to defendants' motion within the time allotted. The court therefore denies defendants' motion for partial summary judgment, pursuant to Rule 56(d)(1), without prejudice to defendants' right to renew the motion after discovery has been completed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer