Duncanson v. Royal & Sunalliance Group Life Insurance Policy

Filing 52

ORDER Requiring Response. Signed by Judge Jeffrey S. White on July 19, 2011. (jswlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/19/2011)

1
2
3
4

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7

DEBRA DUNCANSON,

8
9

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

Plaintiff,
v.
ROYAL & SUNALLIANCE,

ORDER REQUIRING RESPONSE

Defendant,

12
13

No. C 10-02898 JSW

/
LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH
AMERICA,

14
Real Party In Interest.
15
/
16
17
18

The Court has reviewed the parties’ briefing on their cross-motions for summary

19

judgment. Both parties request the Court to weigh the evidence, make credibility

20

determinations and resolve questions of fact, which the Court cannot do on a motion for

21

summary judgment. See Freeman v. Arpaio, 125 F.3d 732, 735 (9th Cir. 1997) (“In considering

22

a motion for summary judgment, the court may not weigh the evidence or make credibility

23

determinations. ...”). The parties treat this matter as though it were a bench trial. In fact,

24

Defendants cite to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52(a) in their legal standard section.

25

Accordingly, the Court directs the parties to meet and confer and determine whether the Court

26

should treat the pending cross-motions for summary judgment as a bench trial. Moreover, if the

27

Court were to treat the pending motions as a bench trial, the parties should inform the Court

28

whether they agree to have the matter deemed submitted, with the exception of oral argument if

1

the Court deems necessary, or whether they wish to submit additional materials for

2

consideration by the Court in the bench trial.

parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment, and will reset the hearing in a later order if

5

necessary. The parties shall meet and confer and file a joint letter by no later than July 27,

6

2011, advising the Court: (1) whether the parties agree to treat the pending cross-motions for

7

summary judgment as a bench trial; (2) if the Court were to treat the pending motions as a

8

bench trial, whether the parties agree to have the matter deemed submitted on the papers filed in

9

support of the cross-motions for summary judgment, with the exception of oral argument if the

10

Court deems necessary; and (3) if the parties want to the Court to treat the motions as a bench

11
For the Northern District of California

The Court HEREBY VACATES the hearing currently set for July 29, 2011 on the

4

United States District Court

3

trial and they seek to submit additional material for the Court’s consideration, what materials

12

and by what date do they seek to file such materials.

13

IT IS SO ORDERED.

14
15

Dated: July 19, 2011
JEFFREY S. WHITE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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