Perez v. California Pacific Bank et al

Filing 80

ORDER by Judge James Donato denying 60 Motion for Leave to File; denying 64 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. (jdlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/27/2014)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7
8
9
10

THOMAS E. PEREZ,
Plaintiff,
v.
CALIFORNIA PACIFIC BANK, et al.,
Defendants.

Case No. 13-cv-03792-JD
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS
AND MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE
THIRD-PARTY COMPLAINT
Re: Dkt. Nos. 60, 64

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13

Before the Court in this ERISA action is plaintiff Secretary of Labor’s motion for

14

judgment on the pleadings (Dkt. No. 64) and defendants’ motion for leave to file a third-party

15

complaint against the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”) (Dkt. No. 60). The Court

16

heard oral argument on both motions on the date of this order.

17

The Court denies the Secretary’s motion for judgment on the pleadings for the reasons

18

stated at the hearing. The Court’s denial is expressly without prejudice to the Secretary’s right to

19

bring a motion for summary judgment on the same grounds relied upon for his motion for

20

judgment on the pleadings.

21

The Court also denies defendants’ motion for leave to file a third-party complaint against

22

the FDIC. The Court finds the request untimely -- this case was filed in August 2013, the fact

23

discovery cut-off is November 2014 and trial is in March 2015. Moreover, the proposed third-

24

party complaint itself shows that defendants already formed a belief when they received the

25

FDIC’s “startling” denial letter in October 2011 that “there was no factual basis for the

26

justifications the FDIC gave for refusing to permit the Bank to repurchase its stock . . . .” Dkt.

27

No. 60-4 ¶¶ 19-20. Finally, the proposed third-party complaint appears to have been motivated

28

mainly by discovery problems defendants say they have encountered while trying to obtain

1

documents from the FDIC. A third-party complaint is not the proper vehicle to address such

2

problems. As stated at the hearing, defendants should promptly tee up any such problems using

3

the mechanism described in the Court’s Standing Order for Civil Discovery should they desire the

4

Court’s assistance in solving those problems.

5
6
7
8
9
10

The parties are reminded that all case management dates remain in place. There should be
no expectation that those dates will be changed absent genuinely extraordinary circumstances.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: August 27, 2014
______________________________________
JAMES DONATO
United States District Judge

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