Kalani v. Castle Park, LLC et al

Filing 46

ORDER signed by Judge Lawrence K. Karlton on 3/21/2014 defendants' 45 Application for Reconsideration of 44 Order striking Motion for Summary Judgment. (Marciel, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ROBERT KALANI,

12
13
14

No. CIV. S-12-2330 LKK/CKD

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER

CASTLE VILLAGE LLC, FUJINAKA
PROPERTIES, L.P.,

15
Defendants.
16
17
Defendants have filed an application for reconsideration of
18
this court’s March 13, 2014 order striking their second summary
19
judgment motion (ECF No. 43), filed while their first summary
20
judgment motion was still pending a hearing.

Defendants assert

21
that they are being denied their Due Process rights because
22
outside of filing a new, successive summary judgment motion, they
23
had, and continue to have, no way to bring their mootness
24
arguments before the court.
25
The assertion is frivolous.

Defendants were free to include

26
whatever mootness arguments they wished in their Reply papers,
27
which they filed on the same day (March 10, 2014), that they
28
1

1

filed their successive summary judgment motion.

2

defendants are still free to include whatever mootness arguments

3

they wish in their upcoming opposition to plaintiff’s motion for

4

summary judgment.

5

Moreover,

Defendants’ application does not explain why they did not,

6

or could not, include their mootness arguments in their Reply,

7

nor why they cannot include them in their upcoming opposition to

8

plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment.

9

application explain why these opportunities to be heard on the

Nor does the

10

mootness issue are not dispositive of defendants’ Due Process

11

concerns.

12
13

Accordingly, defendants’ application for reconsideration
(ECF No. 45) is DENIED.

14

IT IS SO ORDERED.

15

DATED:

March 21, 2014.

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2