Hamilton v. Keystone Tankship Corp., 75-1850
| Decision Date | 28 July 1976 |
| Docket Number | No. 75-1850,75-1850 |
| Citation | 539 F.2d 684 |
| Parties | Donald G. HAMILTON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. KEYSTONE TANKSHIP CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Before CHAMBERS, HUFSTEDLER and GOODWIN, Circuit Judges.
Plaintiff brought this suit in federal district court seeking to recover reimbursement for private medical expenses and sums representing maintenance from the defendant under the maritime laws. Plaintiff's basis for this action was an allegation that he had become ill and disabled while employed aboard the defendant's vessel, the S.S. Catawba Ford. After some discovery had taken place, the defendant moved for summary judgment based on certain "documentary evidence" which it had attached to its motions as exhibits. The motions had no affidavits in support of it and no verified foundation of the "exhibits." The motion and notice were filed on January 31, 1975. Proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law were also filed by the defendant at that time. The district court set argument on the motion for February 18 but continued the argument until March 10 on its own motion. The plaintiff filed a memorandum in opposition to the motion for summary judgment on March 5. On March 7, the plaintiff filed a statement of the genuine issues of fact pursuant to Local Rule 3(g)(2) of the Central District of California. The defendant on March 7, 1975, filed a response to the plaintiff's memorandum in opposition and included an affidavit in support of certain of its exhibits. At the hearing on March 10, 1975, the district court granted summary judgment for the defendant on the grounds that plaintiff had failed to comply with the requirements of Local Rule 3 and based on the absence of genuine issues of material fact. He further refused to allow the plaintiff a continuance to allow the plaintiff to submit affidavits to controvert the defendant's motion. This appeal followed.
The threshold question on this appeal is whether the district court was justified in granting a summary judgment for failure to comply with Local Rule 3.
The pertinent portions of Local Rule 3 provide:
(f) Opposition to Motions, Papers Required Service and Filing
Each party opposing the motion or other application shall not later than seven (7) days after service of the notice thereof upon him, serve upon the adverse party, or his attorney, and file with the Clerk either (a) a brief, but complete written statement of all reasons in opposition thereto, an answering memorandum of points and authorities and copies of all photographs and documentary evidence upon which he intends to rely; or (b) a written statement that he will not oppose the motion.
In the event an adverse party fails to file the instruments and memorandum of points and authorities provided to be filed under this rule, such failure shall be deemed to constitute a consent to the sustaining of said pleading or the granting of said motion or other application.
(g) Motions for Summary Judgment
1. There shall be served and lodged with each motion for summary judgment pursuant to Rule 56 of the F.R.Civ.P. proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law and proposed summary judgment. Such proposed findings shall state the material facts as to which the moving party contends there is no genuine issue.
2. Any party who opposes the motion shall, not later than five (5) days after service of the notice of motion upon him, serve and file a concise "statement of genuine issues" setting forth all material facts as to which it is contended there exists a genuine issue necessary to be litigated.
3. In determining any motion for summary judgment, the court may assume that the facts as claimed by the moving party are admitted to exist without controversy except as and to the extent that such facts are controverted by affidavit filed in opposition to the motion. (Emphasis added.)
The district court held that the above rules required a summary judgment for the defendant in this case. The district judge stated that the failure to file a timely opposition was under Local Rule 3(f) the equivalent of a consent to the motion. He further held that the failure...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hal Roach Studios, Inc. v. Richard Feiner and Co., Inc.
... ... Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc., 395 U.S. 100, 110, 89 S.Ct ... Canada, 831 F.2d at 925; Hamilton v. Keystone Tankship Corp., 539 F.2d 684, 686 (9th ... ...
-
Sheet Metal Workers' Intern. Ass'n, Local No. 355 v. N.L.R.B.
...are insufficient on their face or themselves demonstrate the existence of a material issue of fact." Hamilton v. Keystone Tankship Corp., 539 F.2d 684, 686 (9th Cir.1976) (per curiam). requires entry of summary judgment in the Union's favor because Rule 56(e) does not permit a party opposin......
-
Scott v. Henrich
...on their face to establish that the movant is entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law. See, Hamilton v. Keystone Corporation, 539 F.2d 684, 686 (9th Cir.1976). In support of their motion for summary judgment upon the issue of probable cause, the defendants rely primarily upon the sw......
-
Ass'n of Apartment Owners of Liliuokalani Gardens at Waikiki v. Taylor
...Cir.1989); Beyene, 854 F.2d at 1182;Canada v. Blain's Helicopters, Inc., 831 F.2d 920, 925 (9th Cir.1987); Hamilton v. Keystone Tankship Corp., 539 F.2d 684, 686 (9th Cir.1976).Orr v. Bank of Am., NT & SA, 285 F.3d 764, 773 (9th Cir.2002) (footnotes omitted). None of the documents are authe......