Matoza v. Thor Motor Coach, Inc. et al
Filing
86
ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on 09/14/2017. (mmclc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/14/2017)
1
2
3
4
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7
HENRY MATOZA,
Plaintiff,
8
9
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
v.
Case No. 17-cv-01971-MMC
ORDER DENYING WITHOUT
PREJUDICE PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
THOR INDUSTRIES, INC., et al.,
Defendants.
Re: Dkt. No. 72
12
13
Before the Court is plaintiff Henry Matoza’s (“Matoza”) motion, filed August 17,
14
2017, and currently noticed for hearing September 29, 2017, by which Matoza seeks,
15
pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, partial summary judgment
16
against all defendants in the above-titled action. In response, defendants filed the
17
following: (1) defendants Automobile Protection Corporation, Warranty Support Services,
18
LLC, APCO Holdings, LLC, and Ontario Teachers’ Pension Plan Board (collectively,
19
“APCO Defendants”) filed, on August 30, 2017, an “Ex Parte Application,” asking the
20
Court to continue the filing date for their opposition until a point in the proceedings after
21
the Initial Case Management Conference, and (2) defendants Thor Industries, Inc. and
22
Keystone RV Company (collectively, “Thor Defendants”), on August 31, 2017, filed an
23
opposition/request for denial or continuance pursuant to Rule 56(d), by which Thor
24
Defendants ask the Court to deny the motion or, in the alternative, defer ruling until
25
defendants have had an opportunity to conduct discovery. Matoza has not filed a reply.
26
The Court, having read and considered the parties’ respective filings, deems the
27
matters appropriate for determination thereon, VACATES the hearing scheduled for
28
September 29, 2017, and rules as follows.
1
As defendants point out, Matoza’s motion is premature, as the Initial Case
2
Management Conference is not scheduled to be held until November 17, 2017, and no
3
discovery has been conducted. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(d) (providing “[i]f a nonmovant
4
shows by affidavit or declaration that, for specified reasons, it cannot present facts
5
essential to justify its opposition, the court may . . . defer considering the motion or deny
6
it”); (see, e.g., Barker Decl. ¶¶ 5, 7 (delineating areas of discovery having potential to
7
“raise genuine issues of material fact”)).
8
9
Accordingly, Thor Defendants’ request for denial pursuant to Rule 56(d) is hereby
GRANTED, APCO Defendants’ application for a continuance is hereby DENIED as moot,
and Matoza’s motion for partial summary judgment is hereby DENIED without prejudice
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
to refiling at a later stage of the proceedings.
12
13
IT IS SO ORDERED.
14
15
Dated: September 14, 2017
MAXINE M. CHESNEY
United States District Judge
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?