Mitsui O.S.K. Lines, Ltd. v. Centurion Logistics Management et al
Filing
69
ORDER DENYING 41 DEFENDANT UNION LOGISTICS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT WITH REGARD TO PLAINTIFF'S CLAIM FOR ACCOUNTING.. Signed by Judge Samuel Conti on 12/12/2011. (sclc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/12/2011)
1
2
3
4
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7
MITSUI O.S.K. LINES, LTD.,
8
9
Plaintiff,
v.
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
11
12
13
ALLIED TRANSPORT SYSTEM (USA),
INC.; CENTURION LOGISTICS
MANAGEMENT; CENTURION LOGISTICS
SERVICES, LTD.; UNION LOGISTICS,
INC.; and DOES 1 through 20,
14
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 10-5586 SC
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT
UNION LOGISTICS, INC.'S
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
AS TO PLAINTIFF'S CLAIM FOR
ACCOUNTING
15
16
In this action, Plaintiff Mitsui O.S.K. Lines, LTD.
17
("Plaintiff" or "Mitsui") sues Defendants Allied Transport System
18
(USA), Inc., ("Allied"), Centurion Logistics Services, LTD.
19
("Centurion Services"), Centurion Logistics Management ("Centurion
20
Management"), and Union Logistics, Inc. ("Union"), seeking to
21
recover allegedly unpaid ocean freight charges and fraudulent
22
trucking charges.
23
ECF No. 35 ("SAC") ΒΆ 1.
On September 9, 2011, Union filed a motion for summary
24
judgment.
25
Plaintiff noted that no discovery had yet taken place between the
26
parties.
27
the event the Court should find Plaintiff's evidence insufficient
28
to defeat summary judgment, the Court should nevertheless deny or
ECF No. 41 ("MSJ").
In its Opposition to Union's MSJ,
ECF No. 46 ("Opp'n") at 8-9.
Plaintiff argued that, in
1
defer ruling on the MSJ pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
2
56(d).1
3
declaration stating its need to conduct discovery in order to more
4
properly oppose Union's MSJ.
Id.
As required by Rule 56(d), Plaintiff filed a
ECF No. 53 ("Cicala Decl.").
On November 21, 2011, the Court denied Union's MSJ with
5
6
respect to all of Plaintiff's claims except its claim for
7
accounting.
8
absolutely no meaningful discovery had taken place between Union
9
and Plaintiff, the Court temporarily deferred ruling on Plaintiff's
ECF No. 62 ("Nov. 21, 2011 Order).
10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
Id. at 11.
Noting that
claim for accounting.
However, the Court noted that
11
the Cicala Declaration failed to specify what discovery Plaintiff
12
sought in support of its accounting claim and how such information
13
would preclude summary adjudication of that claim.
14
Ryan, 140 F.3d 850, 853 (9th Cir. 1998) (Rule 56(d) requires the
15
nonmovant to state "what information is sought and how it would
16
preclude summary judgment.").2
17
days' leave to file a supplemental declaration curing the
18
deficiency and stated that summary judgment would be granted as to
19
the accounting claim if Plaintiff failed to do so.
20
2011 Order at 11.
See Margolis v.
The Court granted Plaintiff fifteen
November 21,
Plaintiff filed a supplemental declaration on December 6,
21
22
2011.
23
1
24
25
26
27
28
ECF No. 67.
("Supp. Cicala Decl.").
The Supplemental
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(d)(1), "[i]f a nonmovant
shows by affidavit or declaration that, for specified reasons, it
cannot present facts essential to justify its opposition," then the
Court may deny or defer ruling on the motion.
2
At the time Margolis was issued, Rule 56(d) was listed as Rule
56(f). However, as the Advisory Committee Notes to the 2010
Amendments to Rule 56 note, "[s]ubdivision (d) carries forward
without substantial change the provisions of former subdivision
(f)."
2
1
Cicala Declaration more clearly sets forth the information
2
Plaintiff seeks through discovery to support its accounting claim.
3
Id. at 3.
4
Union's MSJ as to Plaintiff's accounting claim.
Accordingly, pursuant to Rule 56(d), the Court DENIES
5
6
IT IS SO ORDERED.
7
8
9
Dated: December 12, 2011
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
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?