United States District Court for the Northern District of California, 2020

Ferguson v. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services

Ferguson v. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services
United States District Court for the Northern District of California · Decided September 1, 2020
Ferguson v. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services

Trial Court Opinion

3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ROLLINGTON FERGUSON, CASE NO. 4:19-cv-05262-YGR 7 Plaintiff, ORDER: (1) DENYING WITHOUT 8 vs. PREJUDICE PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; (2) RESETTING CENTERS FOR MEDICARE AND MEDICAID BRIEFING SCHEDULE RE: MOTION TO SERVICES, DISMISS; AND (3) VACATING SEPTEMBER 8, 10 2020 MOTION HEARING Defendant.

11 Re: Dkt. Nos. 36, 39 13 The Court has received pro se plaintiff Rollington Ferguson’s motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 39), and Ferguson’s opposition to defendant Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services’ (“CMMC”) motion to dismiss. (See Dkt. Nos. 36 (motion), 37 (opposition).)

16 First, the Court is in the process of addressing CMMC’s motion to dismiss, which is set for a motion hearing date on September 8, 2020. At this stage – where CMMC has not yet answered Ferguson’s complaint and the Court is considering CMMC’s motion to dismiss – Ferguson’s motion for summary judgment is premature. Thus, the Court DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Ferguson’s motion for summary judgment.

21 Second, Ferguson filed his opposition outside the time permitted by the local rules for oppositions. See N.D. Cal. L.R. 7-3(a) (“The opposition must be filed and served not more than 14 days after the motion was filed.”). However, in light of Ferguson’s pro se status, the Court DEEMS the opposition timely filed. The Court RESETS the briefing schedule on the motion to dismiss: CMMC may file a reply to the opposition on or before September 8, 2020.

26 Finally, in light of the rescheduling of the briefing on the motion to dismiss, the Court VACATES the motion hearing set for September 8, 2020. The Court will, if necessary, reset the the Court will otherwise issue a decision on the merits without oral argument, as permitted by Civil Local Rule 7-1(b) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 78. See also Lake at Las Vegas Investors Group, Inc. v. Pacific Malibu Dev. Corp., 933 F.2d 724, 728-29 (9th Cir. 1991).

4 This Order terminates Docket Number 39.

5 IT Is SO ORDERED.

7 || Dated: September 1, 2020 Dyreee Mag tytn YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE qa 12

©

Oo Z 18

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.