UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
June 9, 2009
GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP, A NEW YORK LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP, PLAINTIFF,
GALE CORP., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION ALSO KNOWN AS GALE CORPORATION, DEFENDANTS.
AND RELATED COUNTERCLAIM AND THIRD PARTY CLAIM.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Morrison C. England, Jr. United States District Judge
By Minute Order filed June 1, 2009, this Court denied, without prejudice, the Motion of Defendant and Counterclaimant Gale Corporation ("Gale") for Summary Adjudication on grounds that the Statement of Undisputed Facts submitted with the Motion lacked any citation to evidentiary support, as required by Eastern District Local Rule 56-260(a).
On June 5, 2009, counsel for Gale filed a Motion for Relief from the provisions of the aforementioned June 1, 2009 Minute Order pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(1) and (6). Gale asked the Court to vacate its Order denying the Motion for Summary Adjudication, and to reinstate the June 11, 2009 date initially scheduled for the hearing on that Motion, on grounds that any shortcomings associated with the Statement of Undisputed Facts amounted to only a "procedural mistake". Gale's June 5, 2009 Motion was rejected, however, as improperly noticed.
The Court nonetheless recognizes that there are two additional Motions (filed on behalf of Plaintiff and Counter-Defendant Greenberg Traurig and Third Party Defendants Livingston and Mattesich and Kathleen Finnerty) scheduled for hearing on June 11, 2009. The Court further notes that Gale has already submitted an amended Statement of Undisputed Facts containing the proper evidentiary support. Because Gale has the Court's permission to reactivate its Motion for Summary Adjudication and will undoubtedly do so, and because interests of judicial economy weigh in favor of hearing all three potentially dispositive motions concurrently, the Court hereby continues the Greenberg Traurig/Livingston and Mattesich/Finnerty Motions to July 16, 2009 at 2:00 p.m. Gale may renotice its Motion to be also heard at that time.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2009 VersusLaw Inc.