Chung v. County of Santa Clara

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: May 21, 2025
• Docket: 3:21-cv-07583
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 DANIEL CHUNG, Case No. 21-cv-07583-AMO

8 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING 9 v. ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SECOND MOTION 10 JEFFREY F ROSEN, FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 11 Defendant. Re: Dkt. No. 131

12 13 Before the Court is Defendant Jeffrey F. Rosen motion for leave to file a second motion for 14 summary judgment. Plaintiff Daniel Chung opposes the motion, contending – improperly at this 15 stage – that leave to file a subsequent motion for summary judgment should be denied because the 16 basis for the motion for summary judgment is meritless. The proper inquiry is whether good cause 17 exists to entertain an additional summary judgment motion. See Hoffman v. Tonnemacher, 593 18 F.3d 908, 912 (9th Cir. 2010) (“The district court’s decision to allow Defendant to file another 19 motion for summary judgment . . . required the district court first to modify the pretrial order.”); 20 see also Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992) (discussing 21 “good cause” standard for party seeking amendment of case schedule). In appropriate cases, 22 permitting second motions is logical and promotes just, speedy, inexpensive resolution of suits. 23 Hoffman, 593 F.3d at 911 (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 1, “allowing a party to file a second motion for 24 summary judgment is logical, and it fosters the ‘just, speedy, and inexpensive’ resolution of 25 suits.”). 26 The Ninth Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part this Court’s order on Rosen’s first 27 motion for summary judgment, leaving for this Court to examine on remand whether other 1 Court’s Standing Order limits each side to one summary judgment motion absent leave of court. 2 Martinez-Olguin Civ. Standing Order § E.1. On remand, Rosen seeks such leave. Allowing 3 Rosen to file a second motion for summary judgment is justified because resolution of the second 4 || motion will advance the litigation by testing the legal and factual issues that remain before 5 submitting them to ajury. Addressing the remaining issues at summary judgment would advance 6 || litigation to promote “just, speedy, inexpensive resolution,” and, contrary to his bare assertion, 7 would not prejudice Chung. Therefore, good cause appearing, the Court GRANTS Rosen’s 8 || administrative motion for leave to file a second motion for summary judgment. 9 The Court will hear the motion on September 4, 2025, at 2:00 p.m. in Courtroom 10, San 10 || Francisco. The Court ORDERS the parties to meet and confer and jointly propose a briefing 11 schedule on Rosen’s anticipated motion. The parties shall file their proposed briefing schedule no 12 || later than noon on May 29, 2025. The parties’ proposed briefing schedule must leave at least four 13 weeks between the reply brief and the hearing date. 14 IT IS SO ORDERED. a 16 || Dated: May 21, 2025

17 □ 18 Qesceh Made ARACELI MARTINEZ-OLGUIN 19 United States District Judge 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28