Seata Vai et al v. Wells Fargo Bank National Association et al

Filing 52

ORDER Re Plaintiffs' Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge Edward M. Chen on 11/18/2013. (emcsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/18/2013)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8

VANCAMP SEATA VAI, et al.,

9

Plaintiffs,
v.

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

No. C-13-0294 EMC

WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., et al.,

12

Defendants.
___________________________________/

ORDER RE PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION
TO MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT
(Docket No. 50)

13
14
15

Previously, the Court referred the above-referenced case to ADR for mediation. The Court

16

stayed formal discovery prior to mediation. See Docket No. 37 (civil minutes). A mediation session

17

was held on August 28, 2013, but the case did not settle. Subsequently, the Court held a case

18

management conference in which it (1) noted that a follow-up mediation session was scheduled for

19

November 7, 2013, and (2) ordered Defendants to file a motion for summary judgment by the same

20

date, with the hearing to be held on December 19, 2013. See Docket No. 48 (civil minutes).

21

Although Defendants had until November 7, 2013, to file their motion, they filed their

22

motion early, on September 23, 2013. See Docket No. 49 (motion). Plaintiffs filed a response

23

approximately two weeks later in which they asked that (1) the motion be continued until mediation

24

was completed and (2) the motion be continued so that Plaintiffs could obtain discovery (which had

25

been stayed) to oppose the motion. See Docket No. 50 (opposition). On November 7, 2013, the

26

mediation was completed with no settlement. See Docket No. 51 (notice). The Court then contacted

27

Plaintiffs to determine whether they intended to file a further opposition to the motion for summary

28

1

judgment or whether they intended to stand on the earlier-filed opposition. Plaintiffs indicated the

2

latter, reiterating that they needed to obtain discovery to oppose the motion.

3

In essence, Plaintiffs have made a request to defer a hearing on the summary judgment

4

motion pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(d). See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(d) (providing that

5

a court may allow time for a party to take discovery to oppose a motion for summary judgment).

6

However, at this juncture, Plaintiffs’ Rule 56(d) request is deficient because they have not “by

7

affidavit or declaration [shown] that, for specified reasons, [they] cannot present facts essential to

8

justify [their] opposition.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(d). For example, Plaintiffs have not identified what

9

discovery they need to take in order to properly oppose the summary judgment motion.
Accordingly, the Court hereby orders Plaintiffs to file by November 25, 2013 an affidavit or

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

declaration in compliance with Rule 56(d). The affidavit or declaration must specifically describe

12

the discovery needed by Plaintiffs to oppose Defendants’ motion. By December 2, 2013,

13

Defendants shall file a response to Plaintiffs’ affidavit/declaration. After reviewing the parties’

14

submissions, the Court shall determine whether the motion shall proceed for hearing on December

15

19, 2013.

16
17

IT IS SO ORDERED.

18
19

Dated: November 18, 2013

20

_________________________
EDWARD M. CHEN
United States District Judge

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2