Bachmann et al v. United States of America

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
PHILIPPE BACHMANN, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al.,
Defendants.
Case No. 22-cv-06250-ASK
ORDER GRANTING BURLESON
CONSULTING, INC.’S UNOPPOSED
MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT
Re: Dkt. Nos. 94, 99
Defendant Burleson Consulting, Inc. (“Burleson”) has moved for summary judgment
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 (“Rule 56”). Dkt. No. 94. Plaintiffs Phillipe Bachmann;
Megan Bachmann; J.B., a minor, by his guardian ad litem, Megan Bachmann; and H.B., a minor,
by her guardian ad litem, Megan Bachmann (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) have submitted a non-
opposition to Burleson’s motion. Dkt. No. 99.
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 Burleson’s motion.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: February 3, 2026
AJAY KRISHNAN
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 4:22-cv-06250-ASK Document 108 Filed 02/03/26 Page 1 of 1