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