De Fontbrune v. Wofsy

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: May 12, 2023
• Docket: 5:13-cv-05957
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 SAN JOSE DIVISION 7 YVES SICRE DE FONTBRUNE, 8 Case No. 5:13-cv-05957-EJD Plaintiff, 9 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE ON v. FURTHER DISCOVERY 10 ALAN WOFSY, et al., Re: ECF No. 118 11 Defendants. 12

13 On May 21, 2018, Defendants moved for summary judgment on eight different defenses. 14 ECF No. 61. On September 12, 2019, the Court granted Defendants’ Motion for Summary 15 Judgment based on one of these defenses. ECF Nos. 84. In doing so, the Court also made several 16 findings as to Defendants’ other defenses, including the notice, fraud, and due process defenses. 17 Id. at 16–19, 28. Specifically, the Court found that there existed genuine disputes of material fact 18 and, therefore, Defendants were not entitled to summary judgment on those defenses. Id. 19 The Ninth Circuit reversed the Court’s grant of summary judgment on Defendants’ one 20 prevailing defense. De Fontbrune v. Wofsy, 39 F.4th 1214, 1227 (9th Cir. 2022), cert. denied sub 21 nom. Wofsy v. Sicre de Fontbrune, 143 S. Ct. 1084 (2023). However, the Ninth Circuit also 22 affirmed this Court’s determinations with respect to Defendants’ notice and fraud defenses.1 Id. at 23 1234 (“The district court appropriately left to the finder of fact to determine whether Wofsy 24 ‘receive[d] notice of the proceeding in sufficient time to enable [him] to defend.’”); 1236 (“The 25 district court did not err by denying Wofsy summary judgment on the fraud defense.”). 26

27 1 The Ninth Circuit had no occasion to opine on the Court’s denial of summary judgment on 1 After the Ninth Circuit remanded the case to this Court, Defendants requested additional 2 || discovery on their remaining notice, fraud, and due process defenses. See Joint Status Report, at 3 || 4, ECF No. 116. On the Court’s invitation, Defendants submitted a list of proposed discovery 4 || requests, consisting of ten requests for production, four interrogatories, and at least one deposition. 5 || 118. 6 In light of the Court’s prior findings as to Defendants’ notice, fraud, and due process 7 || defenses, as well as the Ninth Circuit’s corresponding holdings, the parties are ORDERED TO 8 SHOW CAUSE why the Court should or should not permit further discovery and dispositive 9 motions in this case. Both parties shall submit written responses not to exceed 8 pages by May 26, 10 || 2023, at which point the Court will take Defendants’ request for further discovery under 11 submission. 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. 13 || Dated: May 12, 2023 aN. EDWARD J. DAVILA 15 United States District Judge 16

18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28