Lowthorp v. Mesa Air Group Incorporated

• Court: District Court, D. Arizona
• Decided: March 1, 2022
• Docket: 2:20-cv-00648
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

9 David G Lowthorp, No. CV-20-00648-PHX-MTL

10 Plaintiff, ORDER

11 v.

12 Mesa Air Group Incorporated, et al.,

13 Defendants. 14 15 The Court now considers Mesa Defendants’ Motion for Leave to File an Early 16 Motion for Summary Judgment. (Doc. 109.) The scheduling order for this case limits each 17 party, or parties represented by common counsel, to a single summary judgment motion. 18 More summary judgment motions may be filed only with leave of court. Defendants seek 19 leave to file an immediate summary judgment motion on what they view as a case- 20 dispositive issue, that being negative loss causation. Defendants ask for leave, rather than 21 using their one summary judgment opportunity, presumably because, if the negative loss 22 causation motion is denied, they will retain the opportunity to move for summary judgment 23 on other issues after the close of discovery. Plaintiffs oppose this motion, arguing that 24 discovery here has just begun, and factual development is necessary to formulate a 25 response to Defendants’ negative loss causation theory. 26 The district court has broad discretion in managing the conduct and sequencing of 27 pretrial events, including the filing of dispositive motions. Hunt v. County of Orange, 672 28 F.3d 606, 616 (9th Cir. 2012). In the context of summary judgment motions, Rule 56(d), Fed. R. Civ. P., offers a responding party a device for obtaining further factual 2|| development, the lack of which may lead to a premature determination. “Where □□□□ || summary judgment motion is filed so early in the litigation, before a party has had any 4|| realistic opportunity to pursue discovery relating to its theory of the case, district courts || should grant any Rule 56[(d)] motion fairly freely.” Jacobson v. United States Dep't of || Homeland Sec., 882 F.3d 878, 883 (9th Cir. 2018) (quoting Burlington N. Santa Fe R.R. 7\| Co. v. Assiniboine & Sioux Tribes of Ft. Peck Reservation, 323 F.3d 767, 773 (9th Civ. 8 2003)). 9 Plaintiffs’ opposition brief makes clear that, if leave is granted, they intend to file a □□ motion under Rule 56(d) to postpone ruling on the proposed negative loss causation |} summary judgment motion. The opposition brief attaches the declaration of Professor || Steven P. Feinstein, Ph.D., CFA, in which Professor Feinstein provides some areas where 13 || further factual development is necessary before the Court can thoroughly consider the negative loss causation argument. (Doc. 112-1 at 44 15.) The Court does not wish to opine 15 || onthe merits of Professor Feinstein’s declaration right now, except to say that his statement || in paragraph 15 is formulated at such a high level of generality as to be of limited 17|| usefulness. Yet it does foreshadow a Rule 56(d) opposition that may satisfy the lenient 18 || standards in this Circuit necessary for relief. Under those likely circumstances, and considering Ninth Circuit precedent, the parties and the Court would not realize any 20 || savings in resources but may, in fact, end up expending resources needlessly. 21 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the Motion for Leave (Doc. 109) is denied. 22 Dated this Ist day of March, 2022. 23 WMichadl T. dibunde Michael T. Liburdi 26 United States District Judge 27 28

_2-