National Casualty Company v. National Strength and Conditioning Association
Filing
18
ORDER requesting supplemental briefing. Signed by Judge Janis L. Sammartino on 12/27/2018.(jpp)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9
10
NATIONAL CASUALTY COMPANY,
Case No.: 18-CV-1292 JLS (KSC)
Plaintiff,
11
12
v.
ORDER REQUESTING
SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING
13
NATIONAL STRENGTH AND
CONDITIONING ASSOCIATION,
(ECF No. 9)
14
Defendant.
15
16
17
Presently before the Court is Defendant and Counterclaimant National Strength and
18
Conditioning Association’s (the “NSCA”) Motion to Dismiss or Stay Pending Resolution
19
of the Underlying State and Federal Lawsuits (“Mot.,” ECF No. 9). In reviewing the
20
Motion and all related documents filed by the Parties, the Court finds supplemental briefing
21
would be helpful. Specifically, the Court takes judicial notice of the fact that the NSCA
22
voluntarily dismissed NSCA v. Glassman, No. 37-2016-00014339-CU-DF-CTL (Cal.
23
Super. filed May 2, 2016) (the “State Lawsuit”) on December 3, 2018,1 following the close
24
of briefing on the instant Motion. The Court therefore ORDERS that each party file a
25
26
1
27
28
The Court can sua sponte take judicial notice of the docket of the underlying State Lawsuit. See, e.g.,
Headwaters, Inc. v. U.S. Forest Serv., 399 F.3d 1047, 1051 n.3 (9th Cir. 2005) (holding that courts may
take judicial notice of the docket in related cases because materials from a proceeding in another tribunal
are appropriate for judicial notice)).
1
18-CV-1292 JLS (KSC)
1
supplemental brief, not to exceed ten (10) pages, on or before January 10, 2019, addressing
2
the effect, if any, of the dismissal of the State Lawsuit on the NSCA’s Motion.
3
IT IS SO ORDERED.
4
5
Dated: December 27, 2018
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
18-CV-1292 JLS (KSC)
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?