Charlotte B Milliner et al v. Mutual Securities, Inc.

Filing 120

ORDER Denying Plaintiffs' 109 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment Re: Damages. Signed by Judge Thelton E. Henderson on 6/30/17. The motion hearing and further case management conference scheduled for July 10, 2017 are hereby VACATED.(tehlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/30/2017)

Download PDF
1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 4 CHARLOTTE B. MILLINER, et al., 5 Plaintiffs, 6 7 8 v. MUTUAL SECURITIES, INC., Defendant. Case No. 15-cv-03354-TEH ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT RE: DAMAGES 9 10 Presently before the Court is Plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment re: United States District Court Northern District of California 11 damages (ECF No. 109). Defendant Mutual Securities, Inc. (“MSI”) timely opposed the 12 motion (ECF No. 112), and Plaintiffs timely replied (ECF No. 119). Pursuant to Civil 13 Local Rule 7-1(b), the Court finds this matter is suitable for resolution without oral 14 argument, and vacates the July 10, 2017 hearing and case management conference. 15 Having carefully reviewed the parties’ written arguments, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs’ 16 motion WITHOUT PREJUDICE for the reasons set forth below. 17 DISCUSSION 18 In the present motion, Plaintiffs seek two orders: (1) an order “establish[ing] the 19 proper measure of damages caused by Defendant’s breach of duty, and determining those 20 damages as suffered by Ms. Brem”; and (2) an order “establishing that Defendant breached 21 its suitability duty by loading Ms. Brem’s portfolio with high risk [over the counter] 22 Stocks and/or by failing to diversity the portfolio by placing 100% (or nearly 100%) of 23 Plaintiff [Brem’s] funds in speculative and high risk foreign mining stock.” ECF No. 109 24 at 2:2–8. Plaintiffs explain that they seek to build upon the court’s prior holding that MSI 25 breached its duty to determine the suitability of Bock and Evans’ recommended 26 investments. ECF No. 109 at 1:18–2:8. However, although the Court previously held in 27 its March 18, 2017 Order that “MSI’s failure to determine suitability [was] conclusively 28 established” through MSI’s Requests for Admissions, see ECF No. 87 at 7:25–8:24, MSI subsequently moved to amend these Requests for Admissions and filed a motion for leave 2 to file a motion for partial reconsideration of the Court’s March 18, 2017 order. See ECF 3 Nos. 90–91. More specifically, in MSI’s motion for leave to file a motion for partial 4 reconsideration, MSI sought leave to move the Court to reconsider its ruling that MSI 5 breached its duty to determine suitability under FINRA Rules. ECF No. 90 at 1:3–5. 6 After reviewing the parties’ briefs, oral arguments, and Plaintiffs’ supplemental briefing, 7 the Court granted both of MSI’s motions. See ECF No. 113. Thus, at the present moment, 8 MSI’s liability is unsettled1, and the Court finds Plaintiffs’ motion to be premature. See J 9 & J Sports Prods., Inc. v. Johns, No. CIV. 1:14-1347 WBS JLT, 2015 WL 13236876, at 10 *6 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 4, 2015) (refusing to rule on damages because defendant had not yet 11 United States District Court Northern District of California 1 been found liable); Baker v. D.A.R.A. II, Inc., No. CV-06-2887-PHX-LOA, 2008 WL 12 191995, at *11 (D. Ariz. Jan. 22, 2008) (same); Smith v. Micron Elecs. Inc., No. CV-01- 13 244-S-BLW, 2005 WL 5328543, at *6 (D. Idaho Feb. 4, 2005) (same). 14 CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment re: 15 16 damages is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 17 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. 19 20 Dated: 6/30/2017 21 _____________________________________ THELTON E. HENDERSON United States District Judge 22 23 24 25 26 27 1 28 MSI’s motion for partial reconsideration is due today, June 30, 2017. ECF No. 113 at 10:13–14.s 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?