Imperial Irrigation District v. California Independent System Operator Corporation

Filing 59

ORDER: (1) Granting 53 CAISO's Motion for Extension of Time to Answer; and (2) Denying 58 CAISO's Motion for Leave to Exceed Page Limits. CAISO need not answer the FAC until 15 days after the Court rules on CAISO's motion for reconsideration. Signed by Judge Anthony J. Battaglia on 8/16/16. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(dls)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

IMPERIAL IRRIGATION DISTRICT,

Case No.: 15-CV-1576-AJB-RBB

Plaintiff,

12
13
14

ORDER:

v.
CALIFORNIA INDEPENDENT
SYSTEM OPERATOR CORPORATION,

15

(1) GRANTING CAISO’S MOTION
FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO
ANSWER, (Doc. No. 53); AND

Defendant.

16

(2) DENYING CAISO’S MOTION
FOR LEAVE TO EXCEED PAGE
LIMITS, (Doc. No. 58)

17
18
19
20
21
22

Presently before the Court are Defendant California Independent System Operator

23

Corporation’s (“CAISO”) motions for extension of time to answer the FAC and for leave

24

to exceed page limits on its motion for reconsideration. (Doc. Nos. 53, 58.) IID opposes

25

the motions. (Doc. No. 57; Doc. No. 58 ¶ 3.) The Court finds these matters suitable for

26

disposition without oral argument pursuant to Local Civil Rule 7.1.d.1. For the reasons set

27

forth below, the Court GRANTS the motion for extension of time and DENIES the motion

28

for leave to exceed page limits.
1
15-CV-1576-AJB-RBB

1

Rule 12(a)(4) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure1 sets forth the time for

2

responding to a pleading following a motion filed under Rule 12. In relevant part, it

3

provides that, “[u]nless the court sets a different time, serving a motion under this rule

4

alters these periods as follows: [] if the court denies the motion or postpones its disposition

5

until trial, the responsive pleading must be served within 14 days after notice of the court’s

6

action[.]” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(a)(4). While CAISO’s motion for reconsideration will

7

presumably be brought under Rule 54(b), the order CAISO seeks reconsideration of is the

8

Court’s order granting in part and denying in part CAISO’s motion to dismiss brought

9

under Rule 12(b)(6). (Doc. No. 51.) As such, the Court finds the rationale behind Rule

10

12(a)(4) applies with equal force to CAISO’s prospective motion, namely, that it has the

11

potential for resolving this matter in its entirety, which would obviate the need for an

12

answer. The Court therefore GRANTS CAISO’s motion for extension of time to answer.

13

CAISO need not answer the FAC until 14 days after the Court rules on CAISO’s motion

14

for reconsideration.

15

Turning now to that motion, CAISO asks the Court for leave to exceed the page

16

limits. Pursuant to the undersigned’s Civil Case Procedures Rule II.G.3, motions for

17

reconsideration may not exceed ten pages in length and may not include attachments or

18

exhibits. CAISO asks the Court for leave to file a motion twenty-five pages in length, citing

19

the complexity of this case’s factual underpinnings and the legal issues. (Doc. No. 58.)

20

Having reviewed CAISO’s request, the Court is not persuaded that departure from the page

21

limit is necessary. CAISO apparently intends to relitigate certain issues from scratch,

22

specifically, the applicability of the filed rate doctrine to IID’s state law claims and whether

23

CAISO’s tariff controls unscheduled overflow on IID’s transmission facilities. (Doc. No.

24

53 at 3–4.) However, CAISO’s motion need not be lengthy to address these issues in full

25

given the Court’s and the parties’ intimate familiarity with this case following two rounds

26

of briefing on CAISO’s motions to dismiss, as well as the narrow scope of a reconsideration

27
28

1

All future references to “Rules” refer to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
2
15-CV-1576-AJB-RBB

1

motion. See Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cnty., Or. v. AcandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263

2

(9th Cir. 1993) (“Reconsideration is appropriate if the district court is (1) presented with

3

newly discovered evidence, (2) committed clear error or the initial decision was manifestly

4

unjust, or (3) if there is an intervening change in controlling law.”); see also Fay Avenue

5

Props., LLC v. Travelers Prop. Cas. Co., No. 11cv2389-GPC (WVG), 2014 WL 6980248,

6

at *2 (S.D. Cal. Dec. 9, 2014) (“a motion for reconsideration cannot be used to ask the

7

Court to rethink what the Court has already thought through merely because a party

8

disagrees with the Court’s decision” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted))). The

9

Court therefore DENIES CAISO’s request for leave to exceed the page limit.

10

CONCLUSION

11

Based on the foregoing, the Court GRANTS CAISO’s motion for extension of time

12

to answer the FAC, (Doc. No. 53), and DENIES CAISO’s motion for leave to exceed page

13

limits, (Doc. No. 58). CAISO need not answer the FAC until 14 days after the Court rules

14

on CAISO’s motion for reconsideration.

15
16

IT IS SO ORDERED.

17

Dated: August 16, 2016

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
15-CV-1576-AJB-RBB