Casa Nido Partnership v. Kwon

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: February 14, 2024
• Docket: 3:20-cv-07923
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 CASA NIDO PARTNERSHIP, Case No. 20-cv-07923-EMC

8 Plaintiffs, ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S 9 v. MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A SECOND MOTION FOR SUMMARY 10 JAE KWON, et al., JUDGMENT, AND GRANTING MOTION TO FILE OVERSIZED 11 Defendants. BRIEF UP TO 30 PAGES

12 Docket No. 203 13

14 I. BACKGROUND 15 Plaintiff Casa Nido moves for leave to file a second motion for summary judgment, this 16 time against the five remaining Defendants: Catherine O’Hanks, Sandra Kate Vernell, Earl Ray 17 Anderson, Lynne Marie Garibotti, and the Estate of Jae Kwon. Docket No. 203 at 2 (“Motion”). 18 The first motion for summary judgment was against Sentry Insurance Company. The Court issued 19 an Order granting in part and denying in part the first summary judgment motion against Sentry 20 Insurance Company. Docket No. 196. The Order only addressed the issue of insurance contract 21 liability. Id. 22 In contrast, the instant second motion for summary judgment against the five individual 23 Defendants concerns the following state statutory and common law claims: 24 1. The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, 25 and Liability Act of 1980 (“CERCLA”) (42 U.S.C. §9607(a)) 2. Carpenter-Presley-Tanner Hazardous Substance Act (“HSAA”) 26 (Cal. Health & Safety Code) 3. Innocent Landowner (Cal. Health & Safety Code ) 27 4. Water Pollution (Porter-Cologne Act) (Cal. Water Code §§ 6. Per Se Nuisance (Cal. Civ. Code § 3491) 1 7. Negligence 8. Negligence Per Se 2 3 Docket No. 147 (Third Amended Complaint). These statute statutory and common law claims 4 against the five individual Defendants are entirely distinct from and unrelated to the sole insurance 5 contract liability claim against Sentry Insurance in the first motion for summary judgment. 6 Plaintiff also moves for leave to file an oversized brief of 40 pages, asserting that the 25- 7 page limit under Civil Local Rule 7-2(b) is insufficient to allow full and proper briefing of the 8 issues. Motion at 6, 8. 9 II. DISCUSSION 10 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 56 does not prohibit multiple motions for summary 11 judgment. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56. District courts have discretion to entertain successive motions 12 for summary judgment. Hoffman v. Tonnemacher, 593 F.3d 908, 911 (9th Cir. 2010). In 13 appropriate cases, permitting second motions is logical and promotes just, speedy, inexpensive 14 resolution of suits. Id. (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 1, “allowing a party to file a second motion for 15 summary judgment is logical, and it fosters the ‘just, speedy, and inexpensive’ resolution of 16 suits.”). 17 This Court’s Standing Order states that parties are “limited to filing one summary 18 judgment motion. Any party wishing to exceed this limit must request leave of the Court.” Civ. 19 Standing Order – General, U.S. District Judge Edward M. Chen at ¶ 9. Plaintiff seeks such leave 20 here. Allowing Plaintiff to file a second motion for summary judgment is justified because the 21 second motion concerns parties and causes of action that are entirely distinct from those in the first 22 motion. Addressing these distinct parties and causes of action at summary judgment would 23 advance litigation to promote “just, speedy, inexpensive resolution,” and would not prejudice the 24 five individual Defendants. This is so even when though one of the Defendants, Jae Kwon, 25 became deceased and has been without representation while this motion was pending. Plaintiff’s 26 arguments and cited cases are inapposite. C.f. Impreglon, Inc. v. Newco Enters., 508 F. Supp. 2d 27 1222, 1225 n.1 (N.D. Ga. 2007) (criticizing plaintiff’s filing of three separate motions for 1 noting resulting confusing array of factual statements, denial, and counter-statements, but 2 nevertheless considering all three motions under the court’s discretion). 3 The Court GRANTS Plaintiffs motion for leave to file a second motion for summary 4 judgment, and GRANTS leave to file an oversized brief of up to 30 pages. 5 The Court VACATES the February 22, 2024 motion hearing on this motion. 6 This Order disposes of Docket No. 203. 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 8 9 Dated: February 14, 2024 10 11 ______________________________________ EDWARD M. CHEN 12 United States District Judge 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27