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
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?