Hawthorne v. Umpqua Bank
Filing
52
ORDER RE: JULY 10, 2013 CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE. Briefing or Stipulation due by 7/22/2013. Signed by Judge Jon S. Tigar on July 10, 2013. (wsn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/10/2013)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9
10
AMBER HAWTHORNE, et al.,
Case No. 11-cv-06700-JST
Plaintiffs,
11
ORDER RE: JULY 10, 2013 CASE
MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE
United States District Court
Northern District of California
v.
12
13
UMPQUA BANK,
Defendant.
14
15
As discussed at today’s Case Management Conference, Defendant Umpqua Bank’s
16
17
pending Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, ECF No. 40, requests that the Court enter
18
judgment on part, but not all, of Plaintiffs’ Fifth Cause of Action for violation of California’s
19
Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”), Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200, et seq.
Neither the motion nor the opposition addresses whether a motion for judgment on the
20
21
pleadings gives the Court the power to enter judgment on less than an entire cause of action.
22
Unlike Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56, Rule 12(c) does not explicitly provide for that relief.
Accordingly, and as discussed at the Conference, by July 22, 2013, the parties shall submit
23
24
either: (1) competing briefs, not longer than eight pages, addressing the foregoing question; or
25
(2) a stipulated request for leave to file a Second Amended Complaint that separates Plaintiffs’
26
UCL cause of action into at least three separate causes of action.
27
///
28
///
1
2
3
4
Umpqua’s motion will be deemed submitted at that time, unless the Court schedules the
matter for further hearing.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: July 10, 2013
5
6
7
______________________________________
JON S. TIGAR
United States District Judge
8
9
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
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?