Fujita v. The Best Service Company
- Saundra Armstrong
- 4:19-cv-00580
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Fujita v. The Best Service Company, Judge Armstrong set deadlines for a summary-judgment motion but did not decide it.
Plaintiff Keiki Kay Mitsu Fujita and Defendant Hunt & Henriques were affected by the briefing deadlines and filing requirements; the order also concerns The Best Service Company and other defendants named in the caption, but it gives no further information about them.
What happened
In Fujita v. The Best Service Company, the court addressed a scheduling issue involving Defendant Hunt & Henriques’s planned motion for summary judgment. The opinion does not describe the underlying claims or disputes.
Hunt & Henriques had to file its motion by March 16, 2020. Plaintiff had to respond by April 6, and the defendant had to reply by April 13. The motion was scheduled for a May 13 hearing, although the court could decide it without a hearing. The court also warned that Plaintiff’s failure to respond would cause the motion to be treated as unopposed and required Plaintiff to follow federal and local filing rules.
Senior United States District Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong entered the order on February 19, 2020. The court did not grant or deny the summary-judgment motion; it only set the briefing schedule and explained the applicable standards.
The detailed version
- Fujita v. The Best Service Company · No. 4:19-cv-00580
- Saundra Armstrong
- Feb. 19, 2020
Order and procedural posture
The court entered an order setting a briefing schedule for Defendant Hunt & Henriques’s anticipated motion for summary judgment. Summary judgment is a decision without a trial when the moving party shows that there is no genuine dispute about any fact that could affect the result and that the party is entitled to judgment under the law. The court did not decide the motion in this order.
Deadlines and hearing
Hunt & Henriques was ordered to file its motion by March 16, 2020. Plaintiff was ordered to file an opposition by April 6, 2020, and the defendant was ordered to file a reply by April 13, 2020. The motion was noticed for a May 13, 2020 hearing at 2:00 p.m. The court stated that it could decide the motion without a hearing, in which case no appearance would be required, and directed the parties to check the court’s website to determine whether the motion remained on calendar.
Instructions to Plaintiff
The court explained that a party may seek summary judgment on some or all claims or defenses. It also stated that the moving party bears the initial burden of showing the absence of a genuine dispute of material fact; if that burden is met, the opposing party must identify specific facts showing a genuine dispute. Only admissible evidence may be considered, and reasonable inferences are drawn for the party opposing summary judgment.
The court noted that Plaintiff was representing herself and was required to comply with the same procedural standards as a represented litigant. Plaintiff was required to file an opposition and supporting papers by the deadline and to comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the court’s local rules, including Civil Local Rules 7-3, 7-4, and 7-5. The court warned that noncompliant papers could be rejected and that failing to oppose the motion would cause it to be deemed unopposed. Plaintiff also had to email a copy of the opposition papers to defense counsel on the day they were filed.
Disposition
The court set the briefing schedule and issued filing instructions. It did not grant or deny the motion for summary judgment and did not resolve the underlying claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.