Sarinana v. Soto

Background

Armando Sarinana was the plaintiff. S. Soto, also identified as S.G. Soto, was the sole remaining defendant. The court stated that Sarinana had provided an address where Soto could be served.

Order

The court ordered the clerk to issue a summons and directed the United States Marshal to serve Soto with the complaint and its attachments, along with the order, without requiring prepayment of fees. Soto must file an answer under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

To speed the case, the court ordered Soto to file a motion for summary judgment or another motion seeking to resolve the case no later than 91 days after the order was filed. If Soto believed summary judgment could not resolve the case, he had to notify the court before that deadline. Sarinana’s opposition, if any, was due within 28 days after the motion was served, and Soto’s reply was due within 14 days after the opposition was served. The motion would be submitted without a hearing unless the court later ordered one.

Soto also had to provide proof that Sarinana received the required warning about opposing summary judgment. The order states that failing to provide that proof would result in summary dismissal of the motion. Sarinana was required to serve copies of his communications with the court on Soto or, once designated, Soto’s counsel.

Disposition and significance

Judge William Alsup entered an order of service and set procedures for the case to continue. The order did not decide the merits of Sarinana’s claims and did not grant or deny a summary-judgment motion.