Noetzel v. Hawaii Medical Service Association

Filing 70

ORDER CONTINUING HEARING ON NOETZEL'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT re (38 in 1:15-cv-00317-SOM-KJM, 57 in 1:15-cv-00310-SOM-KJM) - Signed by JUDGE SUSAN OKI MOLLWAY on 2/21/2017. "This court concludes that HMSA has identified relev ant information demonstrating that there is some basis to believe that the information sought exists and that such information is essential to oppose the motion. Accordingly, pursuant to Rule 56(d), this court continues the hearing on Noetzel&# 039;s motion for summary judgment to July 10, 2017, to allow time for discovery. HMSA may file a supplemental opposition brief of no more than 1,500 words by June 13, 2017. Noetzel may file a supplemental reply brief of no more than 750 words by J une 20, 2017." Associated Cases: 1:15-cv-00310-SOM-KJM, 1:15-cv-00317-SOM-KJM (emt, )CERTIFICATE OF SERVICEParticipants registered to receive electronic notifications received this document electronically at the e-mail address listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF). Participants not registered to receive electronic notifications were served by first class mail on the date of this docket entry

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII
ELIZABETH NOETZEL,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
HAWAII MEDICAL SERVICE
)
ASSOCIATION,
)
Defendant.
_____________________________ )
)
)
HAWAII MEDICAL SERVICE
)
ASSOCIATION,
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
ELIZABETH NOETZEL,
)
Defendant.
)
_____________________________ )

CIVIL NO. 15-00310 SOM-KJM
CIVIL NO. 15-00317 SOM-KJM
(consolidated)
ORDER CONTINUING HEARING ON
NOETZEL’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT

ORDER CONTINUING HEARING ON NOETZEL’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
On January 5, 2017, Defendant Elizabeth Noetzel filed
a Motion for Summary Judgment in Civil No. 15-00317, arguing
that Plaintiff Hawaii Medical Services Association cannot
recover on an alleged equitable lien under 29 U.S.C. §
1132(a)(3) because Noetzel no longer possesses identifiable
settlement funds recovered in the underlying personal injury
liability action.

Civil No. 15-310, ECF No. 57, PageID # 841.

Noetzel also seeks judgment on HMSA’s claim that she failed to
comply with the terms of HMSA’s health insurance policy.
PageID #s 841-42.

In its February 6, 2017 Memorandum in
1

Id.,

Opposition to Noetzel’s Motion for Summary Judgment, HMSA
argues, in part, that this court should deny the motion in light
of HMSA’s pending discovery requests, citing Rule 56(d) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

ECF No. 66, PageID #s 901-02.

Rule 56(d) states that, after a motion for summary
judgment is filed, “if a nonmovant shows by affidavit or
declaration that, for some specified reasons, it cannot present
facts essential to justify its opposition, the court may: (1)
defer considering the motion or deny it; (2) allow time to
obtain affidavits or declarations or to take discovery; or (3)
issue any other appropriate order.”

Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(d).

In

2010, Rule 56 was amended, and the advisory committee noted,
“Subdivision (d) carries forward without substantial change the
provisions of former subdivision (f).”
advisory comm. n.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(d)

Accordingly, the earlier case law on Rule

56(f) applies.
Rule 56(d) permits a district court to continue a
summary judgment motion “upon a good faith showing by affidavit
that the continuance is needed to preclude summary judgment.”
California v. Campbell, 138 F.3d 772, 779 (9th Cir. 1998).

A

party requesting a continuance bears the burden of (1) filing a
timely application that specifically identifies relevant
information; (2) demonstrating that there is some basis to
2

believe that the information sought exists; and (3) establishing
that such information is essential to resist the summary
judgment motion.

See Emp’rs Teamsters Local Nos. 175 & 505

Pension Trust Fund v. Clorox Co., 353 F.3d 1125, 1130 (9th Cir.
2004) (citation omitted); accord Moss v. U.S. Secret Serv., 572
F.3d 962, 966 n.3 (9th Cir. 2009) (“Rule 56([d]) requires a
party seeking postponement of a summary judgment motion to show
how additional discovery would preclude summary judgment and why
it cannot immediately provide specific facts demonstrating a
genuine issue of material fact.” (punctuation, quotations, and
citations omitted)).
In its opposition and concise statement of facts, HMSA
explains what outstanding discovery would show and how those
facts are essential to opposing Noetzel’s motion for summary
judgment.

Counsel for HMSA has also submitted in a declaration

the timeline of the discovery requests and attached as exhibits
pending discovery requests and a future possible discovery
request.
This court concludes that HMSA has identified relevant
information demonstrating that there is some basis to believe
that the information sought exists and that such information is
essential to oppose the motion.

Accordingly, pursuant to Rule

56(d), this court continues the hearing on Noetzel’s motion for
3

summary judgment to July 10, 2017, to allow time for discovery.
HMSA may file a supplemental opposition brief of no more than
1,500 words by June 13, 2017.

Noetzel may file a supplemental

reply brief of no more than 750 words by June 20, 2017.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawaii, February 21, 2017.

/s/ Susan Oki Mollway
Susan Oki Mollway
United States District Judge
Elizabeth Noetzel v. Hawaii Medical Service Association, Civ. No. 15-00310
SOM-KJM; and Hawaii Medical Service Association v. Elizabeth Noetzel, Civ.
No. 15-00317 SOM-KJM (consolidated cases); ORDER CONTINUING HEARING ON
NOETZEL’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT.

4