Lewis, et al v. Russell, et al

Filing 430

ORDER signed by Judge William B. Shubb on 10/2/12. The Court will give the City ten days from the date of this Order to file a request pursuant to Rule 56(d). Any request shall be supported by an affidavit showing why the City needs additional time to gather facts essential to oppose Martin's MOTION for Summary Judgment, how much additional time it needs, and what discovery it plans to do in that time.(Mena-Sanchez, L)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
----oo0oo---11
12

CHARLES H. LEWIS and JANE W.
LEWIS,

NO. CIV. 2:03-2646 WBS CKD

13
Plaintiffs,

ORDER

14
v.
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

ROBERT D. RUSSELL; IRENE
RUSSELL; BEN J. NEWITT; the
Estate of PHILLIP NEWITT,
Deceased; JUNG HANG SUH; SOO
JUNG SUH; JUNG K. SEO; THE DAVIS
CENTER, LLC; MELVIN R. STOVER,
individually and as trustee of
the Stover Family Trust; EMILY
A. STOVER, individually and as
trustee of the Stover Family
Trust; STOVER FAMILY TRUST;
RICHARD ALBERT STINCHFIELD,
individually and as successor
trustee of the Robert S.
Stinchfield Separate Property
Revocable Trust, and as trustee
of the Barbara Ellen Stinchfield
Testamentary Trust; ROBERT S.
STINCHFIELD SEPARATE PROPERTY
REVOCABLE TRUST; THE BARBARA
ELLEN STINCHFIELD TESTAMENTARY
TRUST; WORKROOM SUPPLY, INC., a
California corporation; SAFETYKLEEN CORPORATION, a California
corporation; the CITY OF DAVIS;
JENSEN MANUFACTURING COMPANY;
1

1
2

VIC MANUFACTURING COMPANY;
MARTIN FRANCHISES INC., aka/dba
MARTINIZING DRY CLEANING,

3

Defendants.

4
5

AND RELATED COUNTER, CROSS,
AND THIRD PARTY CLAIMS.
/

6
7

----oo0oo---When a motion for summary judgment is filed, Federal

8
9

Rule of Civil Procedure 56(d) provides that “[i]f a nonmovant

10

shows by affidavit or declaration that, for specified reasons, it

11

cannot present facts essential to justify its opposition, the

12

court may” give the nonmovant “time to obtain affidavits or

13

declarations or to take discovery . . . .”

14

56(d).

15

motion for summary judgment on September 24, 2012, counsel for

16

the City of Davis (“City”) stated that she was not prepared to

17

present such facts in support of the City’s CERCLA and nuisance

18

claims asserted against Martin.

Fed. R. Civ. Pro.

At the hearing on Martin Franchises, Inc.’s (“Martin”),

19

The court will accordingly give the City ten days from

20

the date of this Order to file a request pursuant to Rule 56(d).

21

Any request shall be supported by an affidavit showing why the

22

City needs additional time to gather facts essential to oppose

23

Martin’s motion for summary judgment, how much additional time it

24

needs, and what discovery it plans to do in that time.

25

Until the court considers any Rule 56(d) request by the

26

City, it will not rule on Martin’s motion for summary judgment on

27

the City’s claims against Martin for recovery under CERCLA §

28

107(a), contribution under CERCLA § 113(f), public nuisance under
2

1

California Civil Code section 713, public nuisance under Davis

2

Municipal Code Chapter 23.0.0, contribution, equitable indemnity,

3

declaratory relief under CERCLA § 113(g), and declaratory relief

4

under 28 U.S.C. § 2201.

5
6

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED:

October 2, 2012

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3