Rabang et al v. Kelly et al
Filing
85
ORDER granting 75 MOTION to Continue Defendant Dodge's Motion for Summary Judgment ; The Court DIRECTS the Clerk to remove the noting date on the motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 66 ). The parties are ORDERED to provide the Cou rt with the date discovery begins or began. The Court will renote the motion for summary judgment for four months after the start of discovery and set an opposition and reply briefing schedule. Signed by U.S. District Judge John C Coughenour. (SWT)
THE HONORABLE JOHN C. COUGHENOUR
1
2
3
4
5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE
7
8
9
MARGRETTY RABANG, et al.,
10
11
Plaintiffs,
v.
12
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’
MOTION TO CONTINUE
ROBERT KELLY, JR., et al.,
13
CASE NO. C17-0088-JCC
Defendants.
14
15
This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiffs’ motion to continue (Dkt. No. 75)
16
Defendant Dodge’s motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 66). Having thoroughly considered
17
the parties’ briefing and the relevant record, the Court finds oral argument unnecessary and
18
hereby GRANTS the motion for the reasons explained herein.
19
The underlying facts of this case have been detailed in previous orders. (Dkt. No. 62 at
20
1–6; Dkt. No. 63 at 1–2.) Additional facts relevant to this motion are as follows. On May 3,
21
2017, Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, alleging new facts against Defendant Dodge. (See
22
Dkt. No. 64.) On May 17, 2017, Defendant Dodge filed a motion for summary judgment. (Dkt.
23
No. 66.) Defendant Dodge argues he is entitled to judicial immunity and the claims against him
24
should be dismissed. (See id.) On May 22, 2017, the parties discussed their plan for discovery.
25
(Dkt. No. 76 at ¶ 5.) After filing a response to Defendant Dodge’s motion for summary
26
judgment, Plaintiffs filed this motion to continue. (Dkt. No. 75.) This motion to continue was
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO
CONTINUE
PAGE - 1
1
2
filed before the motion for summary judgment’s original noting date.
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(d), “[i]f a nonmovant shows by affidavit
3
or declaration that, for specified reasons, it cannot present facts essential to justify its opposition,
4
the court may defer considering the motion.” Plaintiffs argue Defendant Dodge’s motion for
5
summary judgment is premature because adequate time for discovery has not occurred. (Dkt. No.
6
75 at 2.) Plaintiffs wish to conduct discovery as to whether Defendant Dodge had subjective
7
knowledge that he lacked authority. (Id. at 3.)
8
The Court concludes Plaintiffs have shown that, for specified reasons, they cannot
9
present facts essential to justify their opposition to the pending motion for summary judgment.
10
Judicial immunity is a fact-intensive inquiry in this case. A deposition of Defendant Dodge and
11
information obtained through other discovery tools could create a genuine dispute of material
12
fact as to whether Defendant Dodge knew he lacked authority. Plaintiffs’ detailed opposition to
13
the motion for summary judgment does not defeat their motion to continue. See Play Visions,
14
Inc. v. Dollar Tree Stores, Inc., 2011 WL 13100728, at *2 (W.D. Wash. Mar. 1, 2011); c.f.
15
Tatum v. City & Cty. of San Francisco, 441 F.3d 1090, 1100–01 (9th Cir. 2006) (denying a
16
motion to continue filed after an opposition where the plaintiff failed to identify specific facts
17
and explain why those facts would have precluded summary judgment). Therefore, for the
18
foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs’ motion to continue (Dkt. No. 75) is GRANTED.
19
The Court DIRECTS the Clerk to remove the noting date on the motion for summary
20
judgment (Dkt. No. 66). The parties are ORDERED to provide the Court with the date discovery
21
begins or began. The Court will renote the motion for summary judgment for four months after
22
the start of discovery and set an opposition and reply briefing schedule.
23
//
24
//
25
//
26
//
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO
CONTINUE
PAGE - 2
1
DATED this 29th day of June 2017.
A
2
3
4
John C. Coughenour
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO
CONTINUE
PAGE - 3
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?