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)

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