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)

Download PDF
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

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?