Filed: Jun. 30, 2014
Latest Update: Jun. 30, 2014
Summary: ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF'S CROSS-MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SAMUEL CONTI, District Judge. On June 3, the United States ("Plaintiff") filed its opposition, ECF No. 39, to Julio Figueroa's ("Claimant") motion to suppress, ECF No. 18. In its opposition, Plaintiff included a cross-motion for summary judgment noticed for June 20, 2014. ECF No. 39, at 1. On June 17, Claimant filed a notice with the Court requesting clarification regarding the present procedural posture and scheduling for Plaintiff's cro
Summary: ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF'S CROSS-MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SAMUEL CONTI, District Judge. On June 3, the United States ("Plaintiff") filed its opposition, ECF No. 39, to Julio Figueroa's ("Claimant") motion to suppress, ECF No. 18. In its opposition, Plaintiff included a cross-motion for summary judgment noticed for June 20, 2014. ECF No. 39, at 1. On June 17, Claimant filed a notice with the Court requesting clarification regarding the present procedural posture and scheduling for Plaintiff's cros..
More
ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF'S CROSS-MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
SAMUEL CONTI, District Judge.
On June 3, the United States ("Plaintiff") filed its opposition, ECF No. 39, to Julio Figueroa's ("Claimant") motion to suppress, ECF No. 18. In its opposition, Plaintiff included a cross-motion for summary judgment noticed for June 20, 2014. ECF No. 39, at 1. On June 17, Claimant filed a notice with the Court requesting clarification regarding the present procedural posture and scheduling for Plaintiff's cross-motion, arguing that Plaintiff's cross-motion is procedurally deficient. ECF No. 45. Plaintiff disagrees, and filed its own notice requesting that the Court direct Claimant's counsel to file his opposition to the cross-motion prior to Claimant's counsel's overseas trip. ECF No. 46.
Claimant is right. Plaintiff's cross-motion is procedurally deficient for two reasons. First, Plaintiff noticed the cross-motion for a date impermissible under the Local Rules. See Civ. L.R. 7-2(a) ("[A]ll motions must be . . . noticed . . . for hearing not less than 35 days after filing of the motion.") (emphasis added); see also Civ L.R. 56-1. The fact that Plaintiff's counsel did not obtain a specific hearing date for the cross-motion and the motion was not "set" for June 20, 2014 does not alter this conclusion. ECF No. 46, at 2. Second, the cross-motion contains several other technical deficiencies. See Civ. L.R. 7-2(b)(3), (c); 7-4(a)(2).
Because the attempted cross-motion was not "duly noticed" under Civil Local Rule 7-1(a)(1), it is not properly before the Court and Claimant is under no obligation to respond. As a result, the only pending motion in this matter is Claimant's motion to suppress, ECF No. 18. If the United States wishes to pursue a motion for summary judgment, it is instructed to refile in a manner compliant with the local rules.1
IT IS SO ORDERED.
FootNotes
1. The Court is aware that Plaintiff considers "the opposition [to Claimant's motion to suppress] and the motion . . . factually and legally intertwined," and that much of the brief is dedicated to opposing the arguments Claimant raises in his motion to suppress. ECF No. 46, at 2. This order is limited to clarifying the status of Plaintiff's cross motion, and has no effect on the Court's consideration of Plaintiff's brief as an opposition to the pending motion to suppress. Nevertheless, in the future the Court will strike portions of filings that do not adhere to the local rules.
