1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 DAVID ANGEL SIFUENTES, Case No. 25-cv-04479-JST

8 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTIONS FOR 9 v. SUMMARY JUDGMENT

10 META PLATFORMS, INC., Re: ECF No. 35, 40 Defendant. 11

12 13 While a motion to dismiss in this case was pending before the Court, Plaintiff David Angel 14 Sifuentes attempted to file three motions for summary judgment. He first attached to his 15 opposition to the motion to dismiss a “cross-motion for summary judgment and opposition to 16 defendant’s motion to dismiss.” ECF No. 25 at 7. Second, he filed a separate motion for 17 summary judgment. ECF No. 35. Third, he filed an amended motion for summary judgment. 18 ECF No. 40. 19 Any summary judgment motion is premature, as the motion to dismiss is still pending, the 20 pleadings have not yet been settled, and there has been no fact discovery in this case. See Strojnik 21 v. Resort at Indian Springs, LLC, No. 19-CV-04616-SVK,

, at *9 (N.D. Cal. 22 Dec. 19, 2019) (denying as premature pro se plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment, 23 which was brought before the pleadings were settled and before any discovery had occurred). 24 In addition, the Court notes that Sifuentes’s three attempts to file a summary motion do not 25 comply with Section G of Judge Tigar’s Civil Standing Order, available at 26 https://cand.uscourts.gov/judges/jst/tigar-jon-s, which states that “[a]bsent good cause, the Court 27 will consider only one motion for summary judgment per party.” 1 prejudice. Sifuentes shall not refile such a motion at least unless and until Defendant Meta 2 || answers the complaint. Meta’s motion for an extension of time to file a response to the motion for 3 summary judgment, ECF No. 37, is terminated as moot. 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 Dated: December 19, 2025 . 6 JON S. TIGA 7 United States District Judge 8 9 10 11 a 12

15 16

it

4 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28