Gilbert v. Bank of America, N.A. et al

Filing 329

ORDER RESOLVING 326 Administrative Motion for Clarification or in the Alternative for Additional Motions for Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge Jeffrey S. White on June 20, 2016. (jswlc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/20/2016)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

SEAN L. GILBERT, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Case No. 13-cv-01171-JSW
ORDER RESOLVING
ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION FOR
CLARIFICATION

v.
MONEYMUTUAL, LLC, et al.,

Re: Dkt. No. 326

Defendants.

12
13

Now before the Court for consideration is the administrative motion for clarification of the

14

Court’s standing order regarding motions for summary judgment or, in the alternative, for leave to

15

file more than one motion for summary judgment, filed by the MoneyMutual Defendants.

16

Pursuant to this Court’s Standing Orders, “[a]bsent of a showing of good cause, the Court will

17

address only one motion for summary judgment per side.” (Civil Standing Orders ¶ 9.) The

18

MoneyMutual Defendants ask for clarification of the term “side.” The term “side” as it is used in

19

the Court’s standing order does not refer to each individual party. Rather, it means all Plaintiffs

20

on one “side,” and all Defendants on the other “side.” However, as the Standing Order indicates,

21

the Court will consider making an exception to its general rule on a showing of good cause.

22

The MoneyMutual Defendants also ask the Court to deviate from its general rule and to

23

permit them to file ten (10) motions for summary judgment and to file those motions on a serial

24

basis. Plaintiffs oppose those requests and the alternative request to file four motions for summary

25

judgment, grouped by particular defendants. The Court concludes that the MoneyMutual

26

Defendants have not shown good cause to file ten motions for summary judgment. In addition,

27

the Court also finds that the MoneyMutual Defendants have not shown good cause, or that judicial

28

efficiency would be served by the filing of serial motions for summary judgment.

1

o
nt
a
lear
Court that the issues to be presented
e
e
Based on the curren record, it also is not cl to the C

2

dif so greatly that the MoneyMutual Defendants could not f a joint m
ffer
M
l
s
file
motion for sum
mmary

3

jud
dgment, rathe than four motions gro
er
ouped by Def
fendants. Pl
laintiffs have noted that they would

4

be willing to al
llow for an enlargement of this Cour normal p
e
rt’s
page limitati
ions, so long as they are
g

5

pro
ovided a sim
milar enlargem for thei opposition brief.
ment
ir
n

6

Therefo the Cour will requir a joint mo
ore,
rt
re
otion for sum
mmary judgm from th
ment
he
Mo
oneyMutual Defendants, and it shall enlarge the page limitat
,
tions from 25 to 40 page Plaintiffs
es.
s

8

ma have 40 pages to oppo and the MoneyMutu Defendan may have 25 pages to reply. The
ay
ose,
M
ual
nts
e
o
e

9

Court would be willing to consider gro
e
c
ouped motion for summ
ns
mary judgmen if the Mo
nt,
oneyMutual

10

De
efendants can provide thi Court with more detai about the d
n
is
h
il
differing natu of their a
ure
arguments.

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

7

consider
Ho
owever, if the Court perm multiple motions for summary judgment, it would also c
e
mits
e
r

12

wh
hether it shou reduce th pages allo
uld
he
owed per mo
otion.

13
14
15
16

IT IS SO ORDER
S
RED.
Da
ated: June 20 2016
0,
___
__________
___________
__________
________
JEF
FFREY S. W
WHITE
Un
nited States D
District Judg
ge

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2