(PS) Sayyedalhosseini v. Losrios Community College District 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
1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SONIA SAYYEDALHOSSEINI,
Plaintiff,
v.
LOS RIOS COMMUNITY COLLEGE
DISTRICT,
Defendant.
Case No. 	2:23-cv-1571-DJC-JDP (PS)
ORDER
On January 7, 2026, the court issued a discovery and scheduling order. ECF No. 81.
Prior to that, however, on December 30, 2025, plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment.
ECF No. 77. Shortly thereafter, defendants filed an ex parte application and motion to continue
or deny plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment. ECF Nos. 78 & 79. Plaintiff opposes
defendants’ motion. ECF No. 81. Because plaintiff’s motion was filed before the scheduling
order issued, and the parties have not had the opportunity to engage in discovery, plaintiff’s
motion is denied without prejudice as premature, and defendants’ motions are denied as
unnecessary.1
1 Although the Federal Rules to not prohibit a party from seeking early summary
judgment, considering this district’s heavy caseload, it would not be an inefficient use of this
court’s limited judicial resources to address plaintiff’s motion prior to completion of discovery.
To find otherwise would likely result in need to consider successive motion for summary
Case 2:23-cv-01571-DJC-JDP Document 83 Filed 01/14/26 Page 1 of 2

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
2
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, ECF No. 77, is DENIED as premature.
2. Defendants’ ex parte application and motion to continue, ECF Nos. 78 & 79, are
DENIED as unnecessary.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: 	January 14, 2026
JEREMY D. PETERSON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
judgment, leading to piecemeal adjudication of this case. See Hoffman v. Tonnemacher, 593 F.3d
908, 911 (9th Cir. 2010) (holding that because “of the potential for abuse of the procedure[,] . .
district courts retain discretion to ‘weed out frivolous or simply repetitive motions’”); Allstate
Fin. Corp. v. Zimmerman, 296 F.2d 797, 799 (5th Cir. 1961) (federal courts “do not approve in
general the piecemeal consideration of successive motions for summary judgment, since” the
parties should “be held to the requirement that they present their strongest case for summary
judgment when the matter is first raised”).
Case 2:23-cv-01571-DJC-JDP Document 83 Filed 01/14/26 Page 2 of 2