Tan et al v. Coast Crane Company et al
Filing
52
ORDER AFFORDING PLAINTIFFS LEAVE TO FILE SURREPLY; CONTINUING HEARING ON DEFENDANT COAST CRANE COMPANY'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT. No later than January 18, 2013, plaintiffs shall file any surreply, not to exceed seven pages in length, exclusive of exhibits. The hearing on Coast Crane's motion is continued from January 11, 2013 to February 1, 2013, at 9:00 a.m. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on January 8, 2013. (mmclc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/8/2013)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
11
YU LIAN TAN, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
12
13
14
15
No. C-10-3570 MMC
ORDER AFFORDING PLAINTIFFS
LEAVE TO FILE SURREPLY;
CONTINUING HEARING ON
DEFENDANT COAST CRANE
COMPANY’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT
v.
COAST CRANE COMPANY, et al.,
Defendants.
/
16
17
Before the Court is defendant Coast Crane Company’s (“Coast Crane”) Motion for
18
Summary Judgment, or in the Alternative Partial Summary Judgment, filed December 6,
19
2012. Plaintiffs Yu Lian Tan and Zhi Bin Peng have filed opposition, to which Coast Crane
20
has replied. Having read and considered the papers filed in support of and in opposition to
21
the motion, the Court, for the reasons set forth below, finds it appropriate to afford plaintiffs
22
the opportunity to file a surreply.
23
In its moving papers, Coast Crane argues it is entitled to summary judgment, basing
24
its argument on its understanding that plaintiffs’ claims are premised on Coast Crane’s
25
having given no warning regarding “the dangers associated with decedent Peng’s decision
26
to remain standing inside the three trusses and Mr. Zhu’s decision to lift the load while Mr.
27
Peng was standing inside the three trusses.” (See Def.’s Mot. at 12:23-28.) In their
28
opposition, however, plaintiffs clarify that their claims are premised on their contention that
1
the forklift being used at the time of the accident had a “boom that could not be
2
simultaneously extended and raised” and that no warning was given as to said alleged
3
inability (see Pls.’ Opp. at 3:22-24); in support thereof, plaintiffs submit the deposition
4
testimony of Armstrong Lum (“Lum”), a Cal-OSHA engineer, who states the operator of the
5
forklift told him the boom lacked such ability (see Vannucci Decl. Ex. 2 at 18:1-10, 45:1-16,
6
148:13-19).
7
In its reply, Coast Crane objects to the entirety of Lum’s testimony, on the ground
8
such testimony is barred by statute, see Cal. Labor Code § 6304.5 (providing “testimony of
9
employees of [Cal-OSHA] shall not be admissible as expert opinion”),1 and, further, submits
10
deposition testimony from said forklift operator as well as a declaration from its own
11
employee, stating, in each instance, that the forklift’s boom in fact can be simultaneously
12
extended and raised, (see Supp. Cody Decl. Ex. I at 119:1-19; Supp. Larson Decl. ¶ 1).
13
Based on such objection and new evidence, Coast Crane again argues it is entitled to
14
summary judgment.
15
Because plaintiffs have not had an opportunity to respond to the above-referenced
16
argument made in Coast Crane’s reply, as well as the evidence offered in support thereof,
17
the Court finds it appropriate to afford plaintiffs an opportunity to do so.
18
Accordingly, the Court sets the following schedule:
19
1. No later than January 18, 2013, plaintiffs shall file any surreply, not to exceed
20
21
22
23
seven pages in length, exclusive of exhibits.
2. The hearing on Coast Crane’s motion is hereby CONTINUED from January 11,
2013 to February 1, 2013, at 9:00 a.m.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
24
Dated: January 8, 2013
MAXINE M. CHESNEY
United States District Judge
25
26
27
28
1
The Court also notes that even in the absence of § 6304.5, a question remains as
to whether the hearsay statements as to which Lum testified would be admissible for the
truth of the matters stated.
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?