United States District Court, E.D. California
G.P.P., INC. d/b/a GUARDIAN INNOVATIVE SOLUTIONS, Plaintiff,
GUARDIAN PROTECTION PRODUCTS, INC., RPM WOOD FINISHES GROUP, INC., Defendants. GUARDIAN PROTECTION PRODUCTS, INC., Counterclaimant,
G.P.P., INC. d/b/a GUARDIAN INNOVATIVE SOLUTIONS, Counter-defendant.
ORDER PERMITTING LIMITED SUCCESSIVE SUMMARY JUDGMENT
K. OBERTO, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
March 24, 2017, Defendants sent a letter to the Court (the
“Letter”), in which they request, in relevant
part, a second round of “dispositive motion[s]”
in this case. Plaintiff G.P.P., Inc., d/b/a Guardian
Innovative Solutions (“GIS”) sent its response to
the Letter to the Court on March 27, 2017. The Court then
held an informal conference regarding the Letter on March 28,
2017. For the reasons that follow, the Court GRANTS GIS's
request in the Letter for a second round of summary judgment
motions, subject to the limitations provided herein.
courts have discretion in determining whether to permit
successive motions for summary judgment.” Brazill
v. Cal. Northstate Coll. of Pharmacy, LLC, No. CIV.
2:12-1218 WBS GGH, 2013 WL 4500667, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 22,
2013) (citing Hoffman v. Tonnemacher, 593 F.3d 908,
911 (9th Cir. 2010)). “A successive motion for summary
judgment is particularly appropriate on an expanded factual
record and to foster the ‘just, speedy, and inexpensive
resolution' of lawsuits.” Rodriguez v.
Ryan, No. CV-11-1373-PHX-NVW (JFM), 2013 WL 11311297, at
*1 (D. Ariz. Nov. 12, 2013) (quoting Hoffman, 593
F.3d at 911-12).
the Ninth Circuit cautioned that second or successive motions
for summary judgment present “the potential for abuse
of the procedure.” Hoffman, 593 F.3d at 911.
As such, courts “retain discretion to weed out
frivolous or simply repetitive motions.” Id.
(citation omitted). Further, courts have declined to permit
second or successive motions for summary judgment where the
motion was based on “evidence that could . . . have
been obtained and included in [the] first motion for summary
judgment.” Armentero v. Willis, No. CIV
S-08-2790 GGH P, 2013 WL 144253, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 11,
case, the Court permitted limited “Additional
Discovery, ” as defined and delineated in the
Court's March 14, 2017 order. (See Doc. 177 at
3.) As such, there is an expanded factual summary judgment
motions shall be specifically tailored to the expanded
factual record in this case relating to the Additional
Discovery. record in this case and, consequently, a limited
additional opportunity for summary judgment motions may
foster the just, speedy, and comparatively inexpensive
resolution of this matter. The Court therefore finds that an
opportunity for a second round of summary judgment motions is
appropriate. See, e.g., Hoffman, 593 F.3d at 911
(“[A] successive motion for summary judgment is
particularly appropriate on an expanded factual
record.” (citations omitted)). Accordingly, the Court
GRANTS Defendants' request in the Letter for a second
round of summary judgment motions, subject to the limitations
Court ORDERS the following regarding the schedule for this
potential second round of summary judgment motions, as well
as other relevant dates in this matter:
(1) the deadline for any additional motion for summary
judgment is April 20, 2017;
(2) the deadline for an opposition to any additional motion
for summary judgment is April 27, 2017;
(3) the deadline for a reply in support of any additional
motion for summary judgment is May 2, 2017;
(4) if a party files an additional motion for summary
judgment, the Court shall hold a hearing regarding these
additional motions―if such will aid the Court in the
decisional process―on May 4, 2017, at 9:00 a.m.;
(5) the deadline for the parties to submit their joint
pretrial statement is continued to May 12, 2017; and
(6) to afford an opportunity for potential additional motions
for summary judgment, the trial date in this matter is
continued to June 20, 2017.
Court CAUTIONS the parties that it will not entertain
requests to continue or extend any deadlines associated with
potential additional motions for summary judgment.
additional opportunity for summary judgment motions shall be
limited―it is not an opportunity for summary judgment
motions on any topic. Instead, this opportunity for
additional Agreements, as well as the meaning of
“Guardian Labeled Distributor Products” under ...