Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-00103/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-00103-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 

---

1

18-cv-103-WQH-NLS

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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MIKE JENSEN,

Plaintiff,

v.

BMW OF NORTH AMERICA, LLC,

Defendant.

Case No.: 18-cv-103-WQH-NLS

ORDER

HAYES, Judge: 

The matter before the Court is Plaintiff’s Ex Parte Application for an Order 

Striking Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment. (ECF No. 69).

I. Background

Plaintiff experienced problems with a 2011 BMW 550i vehicle manufactured and 

distributed by BMW. In the Complaint, Plaintiff brings claims against BMW under the 

Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, provisions of the California Vehicle Code, and 

common law fraud. (ECF No. 1-3).

On November 13, 2018, United States Magistrate Judge Nita L. Stormes extended 

the pre-trial motion deadline from February 21, 2019 to March 1, 2019. (ECF No. 48 at 

3). Defendant filed the Motion for Summary Judgment on March 25, 2019. (ECF No. 66). 

On April 2, 2019, Plaintiff filed the Ex Parte Application for an Order Striking Defendant’s 

Case 3:18-cv-00103-WQH-NLS Document 88 Filed 05/07/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2

18-cv-103-WQH-NLS

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

Motion for Summary Judgment. (ECF No. 69). On April 12, 2019, Defendant filed 

Opposition. (ECF No. 78). On April 17, 2019, Plaintiff filed a Reply. (ECF No. 80).

II. Contentions

Plaintiff contends that the Court should strike Defendant’s Motion for Summary 

Judgment because it is “both untimely and premature.” (ECF No. 69-1 at 5). Plaintiff 

contends that it is untimely because the Court’s deadline to file pretrial motions was March 

1, 2019, and Defendant filed its motion for summary judgment twenty-four days later. Id. 

Plaintiff contends that the Motion for Summary Judgment is premature because Defendant 

had not yet provided discovery necessary for Plaintiff to respond to Defendant’s Motion 

for Summary Judgment. Id. at 5–6. 

Defendant contends that the Motion for Summary Judgment was not filed late 

because “discovery has not yet been completed.” (ECF No. 78 at 1). Defendant asserts 

that Plaintiff “is the quintessential example of attempting to have it both ways.” Id. 

III. Ruling of the Court

The scheduling order in this matter required that Defendant file any pre-trial motions 

by March 1, 2019. Defendant filed its Motion for Summary Judgment on March 25, 2019. 

Despite the March 1, 2019 deadline, Defendant asserts that its Motion for Summary 

Judgment was not untimely because “discovery has not yet been completed.” (ECF No. 

78 at 1). On April 9, 2019, Magistrate Judge Stormes stated that BMW “failed to abide by 

the Court’s [discovery] deadline without explanation” and Defendant’s time to comply 

with the Court’s discovery order “is long overdue.” (ECF No. 77 at 3, 5). Magistrate Judge 

Stormes imposed prospective sanctions that would issue if BMW did not file a declaration 

certifying compliance by April 23, 2019. (ECF No. 77 at 5–6). On April 23, 2019, 

Defendant filed the declarations of Robert Brown (ECF No. 86) and Athena Yontz (ECF 

No. 87) stating that discovery was complete. 

The record reflects that discovery in this matter was not complete at the time 

Defendant filed its Motion for Summary Judgment because Defendant failed to comply 

with the Court’s discovery deadlines. Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment was 

Case 3:18-cv-00103-WQH-NLS Document 88 Filed 05/07/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3

18-cv-103-WQH-NLS

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

untimely, and Defendant has not shown good cause why the untimely motion should be 

permitted. See Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 610 (9th Cir. 1992) 

(“A scheduling order is not a frivolous piece of paper, idly entered, which can be cavalierly 

disregarded by counsel without peril.”) (internal quotations omitted) (quoting Gestetner 

Corp. v. Case Equip. Co., 108 F.R.D. 138, 141 (D. Me. 1985)). Plaintiff’s Ex Parte 

Application for an Order Striking Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 

69) is granted.

IV. Conclusion

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Ex Parte Application for an Order 

Striking Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 69) is GRANTED. The 

Clerk shall strike Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 66) from the

docket. Defendant, upon a showing of good cause, may request leave to file a motion for 

summary judgment outside of the time provided in the scheduling order. 

Dated: May 7, 2019

Case 3:18-cv-00103-WQH-NLS Document 88 Filed 05/07/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3