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)

Download PDF
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?