Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_11-cv-00602/USCOURTS-cand-3_11-cv-00602-8/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Other Contract

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CONQUISTA CONSULTORIA E 

ASSESSORIA EMPRESARIAL LTDA,

Plaintiff,

v.

IGUACU, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 11-cv-00602-RS 

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO 

DEFER BRIEFING AND HEARING OF 

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Plaintiff seeks an order deferring briefing and the hearing on defendants’ motion for 

summary judgment, pending “the Court’s ruling on its order to show cause and on resolution of 

sanctions for defendants’ refusal to provide discovery.”

1

 The motion to defer briefing and the 

hearing is denied. Plaintiff has requested the imposition of “terminating sanctions”—i.e., the 

striking of defendants’ answer and entry of default against them, which presumably would 

eventually lead to a judgment in plaintiff’s favor. The pending summary judgment motion, 

 

1

 Plaintiff characterizes its request as having been brought “ex parte.” Under Civil Local Rule 7-

10, an ex parte motion is one filed without notice to opposing party, and is permissible only where 

authorized by statute, Federal Rule, local rule, or Standing Order. Although there is no basis for 

seeking ex parte relief in the circumstances here, plaintiff in fact efiled its motion, thereby 

automatically serving and giving notice to defendants. As such, the motion was not made ex parte 

and will be deemed to have been properly brought under Rule 6-3, which plaintiff also cites. 

While oppositions to Rule 6-3 motions must be filed within four days, the Court may act sooner

when appropriate to do so, as it is in this instance.

Case 3:11-cv-00602-RS Document 76 Filed 03/18/15 Page 1 of 2
CASE NO. 11-cv-00602-RS

2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

however, seeks to establish a lack of subject matter jurisdiction. In the event that motion has

merit, there would be no basis to enter terminating sanctions or a subsequent judgment for 

plaintiff. Accordingly, holding the jurisdictional determination in abeyance is not warranted.

Plaintiff suggests it also is entitled to take discovery to support its opposition to summary 

judgment. Plaintiff should offer any and all opposition to summary judgment it may have based 

on the present record, when its opposition brief is due. If plaintiff believes it necessary, the 

opposition may include a request that complies with Rule 56(d) for continuance of the motion to 

permit specific, identified discovery to go forward. Any such request will be considered only in 

the event the opposition would otherwise be insufficient to preclude granting summary judgment.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 18, 2015

______________________________________

RICHARD SEEBORG

United States District Judge

Case 3:11-cv-00602-RS Document 76 Filed 03/18/15 Page 2 of 2