Dunbar v. Dahlberg
- Martinez-Olguin
- 3:23-cv-00905
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Dunbar v. Dahlberg, Judge Martinez-Olguin denied defendants’ requests to pause discovery and file multiple summary-judgment motions in two related cases.
Defendants in the two related actions, who were required to file one summary-judgment motion in each case by June 25, 2024; Eddie Dunbar, whose discovery and briefing deadlines were set by the order.
What happened
The opinion concerns two related cases brought by Eddie Dunbar. Defendants asked the court to pause discovery about the merits while they pursued a summary-judgment motion based on Heck v. Humphrey, and to allow a later second summary-judgment motion if that request was denied.
The court had already extended the deadline for defendants’ summary-judgment motions to June 25, 2024. It also had previously granted defendants’ requests for a new briefing schedule.
Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin denied defendants’ motions to pause merits-based discovery and to file more than one summary-judgment motion. The court directed defendants to file one motion in each case by June 25, 2024, with opposition due 28 days later and replies due 14 days after the opposition.
The detailed version
- Dunbar v. Dahlberg · No. 3:23-cv-00905
- Martinez-Olguin
- May 21, 2024
Background
The court considered defendants’ administrative motions in two related actions brought by Eddie Dunbar. Defendants asked to stay, or pause, merits-based discovery while the court resolved a proposed summary-judgment motion based on Heck v. Humphrey. They also asked for an extension allowing them to file a second merits-based summary-judgment motion 60 days after the court ruled on the Heck motion if that motion was denied.
Before these motions, defendants had asked for a new briefing schedule to give them additional time to investigate facts and prepare a summary-judgment or other dispositive motion. The court had granted those requests, and the summary-judgment motions were due June 25, 2024. The court also noted that defendants had already received a previous extension of time to file their summary-judgment motions.
Ruling
The court denied defendants’ administrative motions to stay merits-based discovery and to file more than one summary-judgment motion. The court directed defendants to file one summary-judgment motion in each case no later than June 25, 2024. Dunbar’s opposition in each case was due 28 days after the relevant motion was filed, and defendants’ reply was due 14 days after the opposition was filed. The order terminated Docket No. 32 in Case No. 23-cv-00905-AMO (PR) and Docket No. 29 in Case No. 23-cv-00906-AMO (PR).
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.