Arrellano et al v. Sonoma County et al

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
United States District Court
Northern District of California
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
FRANCISCO ARRELLANO, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
DEENA MISTRY,
Defendant.
Case No. 23-cv-00187-ASK
ORDER RE: SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Re: Dkt. Nos. 105, 115
Defendant Mistry moved for summary judgment pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure. Dkt. 105. Because Plaintiff Arrellano failed to oppose the motion, the Court
granted summary judgment of Mr. Arrellano’s claims. Dkt. 115. Though the Court allowed minor
Plaintiff S.A. to oppose Defendant Mistry’s motion for summary judgment by May 26, 2026, id.,
S.A. also failed to oppose the motion.
Rule 56(e) permits a district court to enter summary judgment against a party who fails to
oppose issues raised in a motion for summary judgment if such a motion adequately contends that
there are no triable issues of fact and such contention is unopposed. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e); Scarff v.
Intuit, Inc., 318 F. App’x 483, 486 (9th Cir. 2008) (citation omitted). The Court finds that these
conditions are satisfied here and GRANTS Defendant Mistry’s motion as to S.A.’s claims. The
Clerk will enter judgment by separate order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: May 28, 2026
AJAY KRISHNAN
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 4:23-cv-00187-ASK Document 116 Filed 05/28/26 Page 1 of 1