Mitsui O.S.K. Lines, Ltd. v. Centurion Logistics Management et al

Filing 69


Download PDF
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?