Vashisht-Rota v. Howell Management Services

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 APARNA VASHISHT-ROTA, an Case No.: 20-CV-321 JLS (KSC) individual, 12 ORDER DENYING WITHOUT Plaintiff, 13 PREJUDICE PLAINTIFF’S v. MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY 14 JUDGMENT AS PREMATURE HOWELL MANAGEMENT SERVICES, 15 PURSUANT TO FEDERAL RULE a Utah limited liability company; CHRIS OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 56(d) 16 HOWELL, an individual; and JUSTIN

SPENCER, an individual, 17 (ECF Nos. 34, 35) Defendants. 18

19 20 Presently before the Court are Plaintiff Dr. Aparna Vashisht-Rota’s Ex Parte 21 Motions for Summary Judgment to Obtain Judgment for Invoices Due Pursuant to Second 22 Agreement Section 9(a)(b) and Interest Due for Late Payment as per 9(c) (ECF No. 34) 23 and for Invoices Due Pursuant to Second Agreement Section 8(a) and Interest Due for Late 24 Payment as per 8(b) and Adjustments as per 8(d) (ECF No. 35) (together, “Pl.’s MSJs”). 25 “Although Rule 56 allows a party to file a motion for summary judgment ‘at any time,’ the 26 rule also allows the court, as is just, to deny the motion or order a continuance for the 27 opposing party to pursue discovery.” Gordon v. Marquez, No. 118CV01223DADSABPC, 28 2019 WL 1017323, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 4, 2019) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 56). ] “Here, Defendants are entitled to an opportunity to pursue discovery before 2 ||responding to a summary judgment motion. In this instance, .. . Defendants have not yet 3 an answer, no discovery order has been issued,” and the Court has yet to rule on 4 || Defendants’ pending Motion to Dismiss (1) Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6); (2) for Forum 5 ||non Conveniens; or (3) in the Alternative, to Transfer Under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), ECF No. 6 ||21. See Gordon, 2019 WL 1017323, at *1. The Court therefore DENIES WITHOUT 7 || PREJUDICE Plaintiffs’ Motions for Summary Judgment as premature pursuant to Federal 8 ||Rule of Civil Procedure 56(d). See, e.g., Gordon, 2019 WL 1017323, at *1; Code Rebel 9 ||LLC v. Aqua Connect Inc., No. CV1304539RSWLMANX, 2014 WL 12569460, at *1 10 ||(C.D. Cal. Feb. 12, 2014) (sua sponte denying without prejudice motion for summary 11 ||judgment as premature pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(d)); Silva v. 12 Gonzales, No. 13CV1587-CAB (KSC), 2013 WL 12076477, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 21, 13 2013) (“In the interest of efficiency and preserving judicial resources, and taking into 14 || consideration that this case raises issues regarding the effectuation of service of process 15 ||internationally, the Court denies without prejudice Plaintiff's motion for summary 16 ||judgment on the ground that it is premature.”); Kellie v. W. Coast Life Ins. Co., No. 17 |}CV1300211RSWLAJWX, 2013 WL 12205036, at *1 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 5, 2013) (sua sponte 18 || denying without prejudice motion for summary judgment as premature pursuant to Federal 19 of Civil Procedure 56(d)); F.D.I.C. v. Jackson-Shaw Partners No. 46, Ltd., No. CIV. 20 ||92-20556 SW, 1993 WL 557641, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 10, 1993) (same). 21 IT ISSO ORDERED. 22 23 ||Dated: May 7, 2020 (ee on. Janis L. Sammartino United States District Judge 25 26 27 28