Newport et al v. Burger King Corporation

Filing 383

ORDER REGARDING SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTIONS AND VACATING HEARING re #380 Joinder, filed by Beatrice E. Kubu, Carol K. McManus, Catherine A. Kubu, Geoffrey A. Jones, Susan Kubu-Jones, Francisco Foods, Inc., Clifton Shigaki, #278 MOTION for Summary Judgment on Counter-Defendant Willie C. Cook's Amended Crossclaim for Declaratory Relief and Damage filed by Burger King Corporation, #377 Response to Order to Show Cause filed by Strategic Restaurants Acquisition Company II, LLC, SRAC Holdings I, Inc., Jerry M. Comstock, #223 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Strategic Restaurants Acquisition Company II, LLC, SRAC Holdings I, Inc., Jerry M. Comstock, #280 MOTION for Summary Judgment against Strategic Restaurants Acquisition Company II, LLC, SRAC Holdings I, Inc. and Jerry Comstock filed by Burger King Corporation, #279 MOTION for Summary Judgment on Robert Eng, RLE Investment Corporation and the Hakimianpour's filed by Burger King Corporation, #378 Joinder filed by Willie C. Cook, #375 Response to Order to Show Cause filed by Burger King Corporation, #281 MOTION for Summary Judgment on Damages filed by Burger King Corporation, #277 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Burger King Corporation, #376 Response to Order to Show Cause filed by Roy D. Newport, #230 MOTION for Summary Judgment PLAINTIFFS/COUNTER-DEFENDANTS' NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION; MEMORANDUM filed by Roy D. Newport. Signed by Judge Alsup on December 1, 2011. (whalc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/1/2011)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
ROY D. NEWPORT, et al.,

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13

Plaintiffs/Counter-Defendants,
v.

16
17
18

ORDER REGARDING SUMMARY
JUDGMENT MOTIONS AND
VACATING HEARING

BURGER KING CORPORATION,

14
15

No. C 10-04511 WHA

Defendant/Counter-Claimant,
v.
ANTELOPE VALLEY RESTAURANTS, INC, et al.
Counter-Defendants.
/

19

The court is in receipt of the parties’ responses to the order to cause why the précis

20

procedure was not followed regarding the filing of the motions for summary judgment (Dkt. No.

21

372). It was unreasonable for counsel to file so many summary judgment motions, even without

22

taking into account the order dated April, 6, 2011 (Dkt. No. 60). The court will read the motions

23

anyway and will rule on them in due course, but the hearing set for December 8, 2011, is

24

VACATED. If the judge believes a hearing is necessary, a new hearing date will be set.

25

Regarding pretrial submissions, Burger King Corporation is limited to five motions in

26

limine totaling forty pages. All other parties combined are likewise limited to five motions in

27
28

1

limine totaling forty pages. Each side may append a limited but reasonable number of supporting

2

exhibits. Trial will go forward on the scheduled date.

3
4

IT IS SO ORDERED.

5
6

Dated: December 1, 2011.

WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

7
8
9

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2