Richard Pike v. Sean Munson

Dec 1, 2015

13-16075, 13-16083

Versions:

Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge and IKUTA and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM^**

The defendants appeal the district court‘s grant of summary judgment on their affirmative defense of qualified immunity in Richard Pike‘s favor. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. See Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 530, 105 S.Ct. 2806, 86 L.Ed.2d 411 (1985).

The district court plainly erred in ruling that defendants’ opposition to the motion for summary judgment was untimely. Rule 6 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure applies to computing any time period specified in any local rule, see Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(a). If a party makes service by electronic means, the specified time period for a response is extended for three additional days. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(d); 5(b)(2)(E). Pike served his motion for summary judgment by electronic means on April 2, 2013. Under local rules, a response is due within 21 days after that date. See D. Nev. Civ. R. 7-2(e). Reading these rules together, the defendants’ response was due April 26, 2013. The defendants’ response was therefore timely filed on that date. Because it erred in determining that defendants’ response was untimely, the district court also erred in failing to consider the defendants’ response and in failing to construe the facts in the light most favorable to the defendants. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56; Tolan v. Cotton, — U.S. —, 134 S.Ct. 1861, 1866, 188 L.Ed.2d 895 (2014).

Each party will bear its own costs on appeal.

VACATED AND REMANDED.

Before: TASHIMA, OWENS, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM^**

Edward Benton appeals pro se from the district court‘s judgment in his diversity action alleging state law contract and tort claims in connection with his chemical transportation business. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a district court‘s dismissal for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Pride v. Correa, 719 F.3d 1130, 1133 (9th Cir. 2013). We affirm.

Notes

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.