Kelleher v. Kelleher et al

Filing 80

ORDER CONTINUING CMC: Case Management Statement due by 8/14/2014. Case Management Conference set for 8/21/2014 10:00 AM.ORDER DENYING AS MOOT 79 MOTION ENLARGE DATE TO FILE RESPONSE RE: DEFENDANT DEANS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGME NT (Dkt# 73) ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE 42 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment and NOTICE OF MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment re: Constructive Fraudulent Transfer Claim filed by Amber Kelleher; 72 MOTION for Summary Judgment Or, Alternatively, Summary Adjudication of Issues filed by John C. Dean, Alice S. ("SUSAN") Dean. Signed by Judge Maria-Elena James on 4/28/2014. (cdnS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/28/2014)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

AMBER KELLEHER,

Case No. 13-cv-05450-MEJ

Plaintiff,
8

ORDER CONTINUING CMC

v.
9
10

JOHN E. KELLEHER, et al.,
Defendants.

ORDER RE: DISCOVERY AND
PENDING MOTIONS

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13

This matter is currently scheduled for a Case Management Conference on May 1, 2014. In

14

the parties’ joint statement, Plaintiff states that she will seek to add the Estate of Ann Wells as an

15

additional party-defendant as soon as the six-month bar to such claims under Georgia probate law

16

runs, and no later than August 1, 2014. Plaintiff also states that she may seek leave to re-plead her

17

claim for Actual Fraudulent Transfer against the Deans, and would do so by August 1, 2014.

18

In the joint statement, the parties state that no discovery has been conducted, yet there are

19

now two summary judgment motions pending: Plaintiff filed her Motion for Partial Summary

20

Judgment (Liability Only) re: Constructive Fraudulent Transfer on April 8, 2014 (Dkt. No. 42);

21

and the Deans filed their Motion for Summary Judgment on April 24, 2014 (Dkt. No. 72).

22
23
24
25

Further, as part of his Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion, Defendant John Kelleher filed a request
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(d) to take discovery and obtain evidence sufficient
to establish his defenses to this action. Dkt. No. 67.
Given that Plaintiff may seek to add an additional party with claims that will likely be
similar or identical to her claims against the Deans, and the parties have not conducted discovery,

26
the Court finds it prudent to defer ruling on any summary judgment motions until all parties have
27
28

1

appeared in this action and the parties have had time to conduct discovery. Accordingly, the Court

2

ORDERS as follows:

3

1)

The May 1, 2014 Case Management Conference is VACATED.

4

2)

John Kelleher’s Rule 56(d) motion is GRANTED.

5

3)

The parties’ pending summary judgment motions are DENIED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE.1

6
4)

7

The parties shall commence discovery in compliance with the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure.

8
5)

9

Plaintiff shall file any Second Amended Complaint by August 1, 2014. If Plaintiff
intends to re-plead any causes of action that have already been dismissed, she shall

10

instead file a motion pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15.
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

6)

The settlement conference referral remains in effect and the parties shall appear for

12
the conference with Chief Magistrate Judge Laporte as scheduled.
13

7)

14

So that the parties can focus on settlement negotiations and discovery, no summary
judgment motions may be filed without further order from the Court.

15

8)

16

The Court shall conduct a Case Management Conference on August 21, 2014 at
10:00 a.m. in Courtroom B, 15th Floor, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco,

17

California. The parties shall file an updated joint statement by August 14, 2014.

18

IT IS SO ORDERED.

19
20

Dated: April 28, 2014

21

______________________________________
MARIA-ELENA JAMES
United States Magistrate Judge

22
23
24
25
26
27
1

28

Plaintiff’s application for an Order enlarging her time to file her Response to the Deans’ Motion
for Summary Judgment is DENIED AS MOOT.
2