Wiley et al v. Caliber Home Loans, Inc. et al

Filing 82

PRETRIAL ORDER. Signed by Judge Jon S. Tigar on March 6, 2017. (wsn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/6/2017)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 PETER WILEY, et al., Plaintiffs, 8 9 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 Case No.15-cv-05584-JST PRETRIAL ORDER v. CALIBER HOME LOANS, INC., Defendant. 12 13 14 15 This matter is scheduled for trial on April 3, 2017. A pretrial conference is scheduled for March 10, 2017 at 2:00 p.m. The Standing Order for Civil Trials Before District Judge Jon S. Tigar provides that the 16 parties must submit, among other things, proposed jury instructions at least five court days before 17 the pretrial conference. Plaintiffs are currently in violation of this requirement. At the pretrial 18 conference, Plaintiffs should explain why the Court should not strike the jury in this case as a 19 sanction for failure to comply with the Court’s standing order. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(f). 20 Caliber requests that the Court instruct the jury regarding the tender rule. ECF No. 77 at 21 26. Caliber cites no case in which a jury has been asked to apply the tender rule. Moreover, the 22 Court has twice rejected the application of the tender rule on the facts of this case, ECF No. 54 at 23 3-2; ECF No. 67 at 4, and the defenses to the tender rule are equitable ones which this Court will 24 need to decide. Caliber should be prepared to discuss the facts the jury and the Court will need to 25 decide at trial to determine the tender rule’s application. Given that the parties do not dispute that 26 Plaintiffs did not comply with the tender rule, the most appropriate approach may be for the Court 27 to decide whether Plaintiffs have proven an equitable exception. 28 Caliber has also submitted a jury instruction regarding Plaintiff’s claim under California 1 Business & Professions Code section 17200. ECF No. 77 at 31. There is no right to a jury trial on 2 a 17200 cause of action. Hodge v. Superior Court, 145 Cal. App. 4th 278, 284 (2006); Acad. of 3 Motion Picture Arts & Scis. v. GoDaddy, Inc., No. CV 10-3738-AB (CWX), 2015 WL 12697732, 4 at *2 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 10, 2015). This claim will be tried to the Court. 5 6 7 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: March 6, 2017 ______________________________________ JON S. TIGAR United States District Judge 9 10 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?