Case No. CV 03-275-E-LMB.United States District Court, D. Idaho.
October 27, 2004
ORDER
LARRY BOYLE, Magistrate Judge
Currently pending before the Court are Defendants’ Request for an Order Granting Unopposed Motion (Docket No. 40), Plaintiff’s Motion to Have the Court Deem its Motion for Summary Judgment as a Response in Opposition to Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket No. 41), and Plaintiff’s Motion for an Expedited Hearing (Docket No. 44). In the interest of avoiding further delay, and because the Court conclusively finds that the decisional process would not be significantly aided by oral argument, the Court will address and resolve these pending motions without a hearing. Having carefully reviewed the record, and otherwise being fully advised, the Court enters the following Order.
Page 2
On September 3, 2004, both Plaintiff and Defendants submitted cross motions for summary judgment (Docket Nos. 26, 31). Subsequent to the filings of the summary judgment motions, Plaintiff did not formally submit evidence in opposition to Defendants’ summary judgment motion. Instead, Plaintiff’s opposition to Defendants’ summary judgment motion relied on the evidence that he had submitted in support of his cross motion for summary judgment.
On October 19, 2004, Defendants alleged that Plaintiff failed to respond to Defendants’ summary judgment motion, and pursuant to D. Id. L.R. 7.1(f), Defendants submitted a Request for Order Granting an Unopposed Motion (Docket No. 40). Three days later, on October 22, 2004, Plaintiff submitted a Motion to Have the Court Deem its Motion for Summary Judgment as a Response in Opposition to Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket No. 41). The Court will now consider the parties’ pending dispute.
In cases of simultaneous filings of cross motions for summary judgment, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has held that trial courts may essentially treat cross motions for summary judgment as responsive to each other. See e.g., Fair Housing Council of Riverside Co., Inc., v. Riverside Two, 249 F.3d 1132, 1135 (9th Cir. 2001). Further, D. Id. L.R. 7.1(f) allows the Court discretion stating only that, “[i]n the event an adverse party fails to file any response documents required to be filed under this rule in a timely manner, such failure may be deemed to constitute a consent to the sustaining of said pleading or the granting of said motion or other application.” (emphasis added).
In harmony with the aforementioned legal authority, and because the Court concludes that Plaintiff intended for his Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket No. 31) to constitute a
Page 3
response to Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket No. 26), and since the Court desires that the instant action be fully adjudicated on the merits rather than dismissed on a technicality, the Court will deem Plaintiff’s summary judgment motion, and its correlating pleadings, as a response in opposition to Defendants’ summary judgment motion.
Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
1. Defendants’ Request for Order Granting an Unopposed Motion (Docket No. 40) is DENIED.
2. Plaintiff’s Motion to Have the Court Deem its Motion for Summary Judgment as a Response in Opposition to Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket No. 41) is GRANTED.
3. Plaintiff’s Motion for an Expedited Hearing (Docket No. 44) is MOOT.
Page 1