Akkawi v. Sadr

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: May 21, 2025
• Docket: 2:20-cv-01034
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DIANA AKKAWI, et al., No. 2:20-cv-01034-DC-AC 12 Plaintiffs, 13 v. ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE 14 KASRA SADR, et al., SUCCESSIVE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 15 Defendants. (Doc. Nos. 238, 239) 16 17 This matter is before the court on Defendants’ motion for leave to file a successive motion 18 for summary judgment. (Doc. No. 238.) Plaintiffs filed an opposition to Defendants’ motion on 19 April 25, 2025. (Doc. No. 245.) For the reasons explained below, the court will deny Defendants’ 20 motion. 21 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 does not limit the number of summary judgment 22 motions that a party may file. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56. The Ninth Circuit has held that “district 23 courts have discretion to permit successive motions for summary judgment,” and that doing so 24 may “foster[ ] the ‘just, speedy, and inexpensive’ resolution of suits.” Hoffman v. Tonnemacher, 25 593 F.3d 908, 911 (9th Cir. 2010) (citation omitted). “A renewed or successive summary 26 judgment motion is appropriate especially if one of the following grounds exists: (1) an 27 intervening change in controlling law; (2) the availability of new evidence or an expanded factual 28 record; and (3) [the] need to correct a clear error or prevent manifest injustice.” Brazill v. Ca. 1 Northstate Coll. of Pharm., LLC, No. 2:12-cv-1218-WBS, 2013 WL 4500667, at *1 (E.D. Cal. 2 Aug. 22, 2013) (citation omitted). However, due to the potential for abuse, district courts retain 3 discretion to “weed out frivolous or simply repetitive motions.” Hoffman, 593 F.3d at 911 4 (citing Knox v. Sw. Airlines, 124 F.3d 1103, 1106 (9th Cir. 1997)). 5 Defendants seek leave to file a successive motion for summary judgment “based on new 6 and additional facts.” (Doc. No. 238 at 2.) Having reviewed Defendants’ proposed successive 7 motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 239), the court finds Defendants’ arguments repetitive 8 of their prior motion for summary judgment and permitting Defendants to file a successive 9 motion for summary judgment would be frivolous. Similar to their prior motion (Doc. No. 207), 10 Defendants argue that summary judgment should be granted in their favor on Plaintiffs’ Driver 11 Protection Privacy Act claim because no evidence exists that Defendants obtained Plaintiffs’ 12 personal information through the California Department of Motor Vehicles’ (“California DMV”) 13 records. (Doc. Nos. 238 at 2–3, 11–13; 239 at 4). Defendants’ argument is unavailing in large part 14 because it is inaccurate. Defendants cite to the deposition testimony of Plaintiff’s expert, Larry 15 Londre, who they contend is unable to identify the source of each individual Plaintiffs’ personal 16 information. (Doc. Nos. 238 at 4–10; 239 at 5–11.) However, as detailed in the court’s August 22, 17 2024 order denying Defendants’ prior motion for summary judgment, Defendants’ evidence does 18 not conclusively show that Plaintiffs cannot establish the sourcing of Defendants’ data, as is 19 required to prevail on their Driver Protection Privacy Act claim. (Doc. No. 217 at 4.) Even the 20 new evidence relied upon by Defendants falls short of conclusively establishing that Plaintiffs 21 could not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Defendants obtained their personal data 22 from the California DMV. Indeed, as Plaintiff’s emphasize in their opposition to the pending 23 motion, their expert Londre opines that the marketing information containing Plaintiffs’ personal 24 information was most likely sourced from the California DMV. (See Doc. No. 245 at 4.) 25 Thus, here too, “Defendants fail[] to carry their initial burden of establishing the lack of 26 any genuine issue of material fact,” specifically as to whether Defendants obtained Plaintiffs’ 27 personal information through California DMV records. (Doc. No. 217 at 4.) 28 ///// 1 Accordingly, 2 1. Defendants’ motion for leave to file a second motion for summary judgment (Doc. 3 No. 238) is DENIED; and 4 2. Defendants’ proposed motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 239) shall be 5 DISREGARDED. 6 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. □ 9 | Dated: _May 20, 2025 RVI <—_ Dena Coggins 10 United States District Judge 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28