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 Judg ment 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 Holdi ngs 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 Com pany 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 Joinde r 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 Corporatio n, 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)

Download PDF
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

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?