Shotwell v. Chavez-Epperson

Background

The United States Court of Appeals had affirmed part of the earlier judgment, reversed part of it, and remanded the case to the district court for further proceedings. The order refers to claims that remained after the appellate court's decision and to defendants who had not been served.

Court’s orders

The clerk was ordered to reopen the case. Within 90 days after the order was filed, the defendants were required to file a motion for summary judgment or another dispositive motion concerning the remaining claims, as described in the appellate court’s order. A dispositive motion is one that could resolve some or all of the claims.

Within the same 90-day period, Shotwell was required to show cause—explain why—the claims against the unserved defendants should not be dismissed for lack of service under Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The court did not dismiss those claims in this order.

The order set deadlines for Shotwell’s opposition and the defendants’ reply. It stated that discovery could proceed under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure without another court order. It also required defendants moving for summary judgment to provide Shotwell with a specified warning and proof that the warning was served with the motion; otherwise, the motion would be summarily dismissed.

Disposition and significance

Judge William Alsup reopened the file, scheduled potential dispositive motions, and required a response concerning service on the unserved defendants. The order did not decide the merits of the remaining claims, grant or deny summary judgment, or state that the claims against the unserved defendants were dismissed.