Davison Design & Development Inc. et al v. Riley

Filing 171

ORDER by Judge Hamilton denying 151 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings; denying 152 Motion for Protective Order; denying 168 Motion for Leave to File (pjhlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/9/2012)

Download PDF
1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 6 7 DAVISON DESIGN & DEVELOPMENT INC., et al., 8 Plaintiff(s), No. C 11-2970 PJH 9 v. 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 CATHY RILEY, ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER, DENYING MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS, AND DENYING LEAVE TO FILE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 12 13 Defendant(s). _______________________________/ 14 15 Defendant Cathy Riley’s motion for protective order and motion for judgment on the 16 pleadings came on for hearing before this court on November 7, 2012. Plaintiffs appeared 17 through their counsel, Leeor Neta. Defendant appeared through her counsel, Timothy 18 Walton. Having read the papers filed in conjunction with the motions and carefully 19 considered the arguments and the relevant legal authority, and good cause appearing, the 20 court hereby DENIES Riley’s motions, for the reasons stated at the hearing and as follows. 21 First, defendant apparently seeks judgment on the pleadings in her favor based on 22 the court’s dismissal of her counterclaims. She argues that the court’s dismissal served to 23 moot plaintiffs’ declaratory judgment claims in her favor, thus justifying judgment on the 24 pleadings. However, if any party would be entitled to judgment on the pleadings, it would 25 be plaintiffs, who have not moved for such relief. Defendant’s motion is better construed as 26 a motion for the court to decline declaratory judgment jurisdiction over the case. However, 27 even construed as such, the court finds that the more prudent course is to decide plaintiffs’ 28 claims on the merits, and thus DENIES defendant’s motion. 1 Defendant also moves for a protective order, but that motion is premised on the idea 2 that the court should halt discovery while it considers defendant’s motion for judgment on 3 the pleadings. Because the court finds that denial of the motion for judgment on the 4 pleadings is warranted, and that the case should proceed, defendant’s motion for protective 5 order is also DENIED. 6 Finally, defendant has filed a request for leave to file a motion for reconsideration of 7 the court’s order dismissing defendant’s counterclaims. Defendant’s request is based 8 solely on the U.S. Supreme Court’s denial of certiorari in a case involving the same 9 preemption analysis at issue here. However, the Court’s action does not present any reason for the court to reconsider its previous order, because “denial of certiorari imports 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 no expression of opinion upon the merits of a case.” Brown v. Allen, 334 U.S. 443, 456 12 (1953). Thus, defendant’s request is DENIED. 13 14 IT IS SO ORDERED. 15 Dated: November 9, 2012 ______________________________ PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON 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?