Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-00303/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-00303-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 110
Nature of Suit: Insurance
Cause of Action: 28:2201 Constitutionality of State Statutes

---

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

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

AMERICAN HOME ASSURANCE COMPANY,

 Plaintiff,

 v.

TUTOR-SALIBA CORPORATION/O & G 

INDUSTRIES, INC. J.V.; et al.,

 Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 15-cv-00303-SC

SCHEDULING ORDER AND ORDER 

DENYING IMPROPER ADMINISTRATIVE 

MOTION

Now before the Court is Defendants Tutor Saliba Corporation, 

O&G Industries, Inc. and Tutor Saliba Corporation/O&G Industries,

Inc. J.V.'s (collectively "Tutor") administrative motion to dismiss 

Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment as premature. ECF No. 32

("Mot."). The motion is unopposed, and it is DENIED. However, the 

Court will adjust the briefing schedule, hearing date, and deadline 

to respond to Plaintiff's complaint, as described below.

This case was filed on January 21, 2015, and Plaintiff 

American Home Assurance Company ("American Home") moved for summary 

judgment on February 13, before any defendant had responded to the 

Case 3:15-cv-00303-SC Document 36 Filed 02/26/15 Page 1 of 4
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

For the Northern District of California

complaint. American Home and Defendant R&L Brosamer, Inc. 

("Brosamer") stipulated to continue the hearing on the summary 

judgment motion and to extend time for Brosamer to respond to both 

the complaint and the summary judgment motion. American Home and 

Tutor, however, did not reach such an agreement. Instead, Tutor 

filed an improper administrative motion under Civil Local Rule 7-11

requesting that the Court deny American Home's summary judgment 

motion without prejudice.

Civil Local Rule 7-11 provides for the filing of motions to 

deal with "miscellaneous administrative matters, not otherwise 

governed by a federal statute, Federal or local rule or standing 

order of the assigned judge." Tutor's motion is improper in every 

possible way. First, the denial of a dispositive motion is not a 

"miscellaneous administrative matter." Second, the relief Tutor 

seeks -- denial of American Home's summary judgment motion without 

prejudice or, in the alternative, continuation of the hearing date 

and briefing schedule -- is explicitly governed by Federal Rule of 

Civil Procedure 56(d).

Rule 56(d) permits the Court to postpone ruling on a motion 

for summary judgment "[i]f a nonmovant shows by affidavit or 

declaration that, for specified reasons, it cannot present facts 

essential to justify its opposition." Indeed, Tutor seeks denial 

or deferral of the motion because "[t]he parties have limited 

information about the facts determining coverage [this is an 

insurance case] as discovery has been stayed in the underlying 

action . . . ." Mot. at 3. To prevail under this Rule, a party

opposing a motion for summary judgment must make "(a) a timely 

application which (b) specifically identifies (c) relevant 

Case 3:15-cv-00303-SC Document 36 Filed 02/26/15 Page 2 of 4
3

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

For the Northern District of California

information, (d) where there is some basis for believing that the 

information sought actually exists." Emp'rs Teamsters Local Nos. 

175 & 505 Pension Tr. Fund v. Clorox Co., 353 F.3d 1125, 1129-30 

(9th Cir. 2004). "The burden is on the party seeking additional 

discovery to proffer sufficient facts to show that the evidence 

sought exists, and that it would prevent summary judgment." Chance 

v. Pac–Tel Teletrac Inc., 242 F.3d 1151, 1161 n.6 (9th Cir. 2001). 

Additionally, "[t]he district court does not abuse its discretion 

by denying further discovery if . . . the movant fails to show how 

the information sought would preclude summary judgment." Cal. 

Union Ins. Co. v. Am. Diversified Sav. Bank, 914 F.2d 1271, 1278 

(9th Cir. 1990) (citations omitted).

Thus, even were the Court to treat Tutor's motion as a Rule 

56(d) request, it would be denied. Tutor attached a declaration to 

its motion, but that declaration merely asserts that Tutor 

contacted American Home regarding a stipulation to a new briefing 

schedule and never got an affirmative response. See ECF No. 32-2. 

There is no discussion of the information Tutor needs, no reason 

for believing that the information Tutor seeks actually exists, and 

no discussion of why that information might defeat summary 

judgment. The declaration utterly fails to comply with the Ninth 

Circuit's requirements for a Rule 56(d) request. Were Tutor's 

motion properly brought as a Rule 56(d) request in its opposition 

brief, the Court would deny a Rule 56(d) request that fails so 

thoroughly to adhere to the standards provided by the Federal Rules 

of Civil Procedure and the Ninth Circuit.

Nonetheless, American Home and Brosamer have agreed to 

continue the hearing date on the summary judgment motion and to

Case 3:15-cv-00303-SC Document 36 Filed 02/26/15 Page 3 of 4
4

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

For the Northern District of California

extend the briefing schedule. See ECF No. 35. It would be 

inequitable for the Court to require Tutor to follow the original 

schedule, despite Tutor's disregard of the Local Rules and Federal 

Rules of Civil Procedure. The agreement between American Home and 

Brosamer to continue the motion and extend the deadlines, as well 

as the lack of any opposition to Tutor's improper motion,

demonstrate that such extension would not prejudice any other 

party. Accordingly, the Court hereby ORDERS as follows:

• The hearing on Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment (ECF 

No. 25) is hereby continued to May 15, 2015 at 10:00 a.m.;

• Defendants shall file any opposition to the motion for summary 

judgment by April 17, 2015;

• Plaintiff shall file any reply in support of the motion for 

summary judgment by April 24, 2015;

• Defendants shall file any responses to Plaintiff's complaint, 

ECF No. 1, by April 10, 2015 (the last to day to file a motion 

to be heard on May 15, pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-2(a));

• Brosamer's motion to extend time, ECF No. 28, is TERMINATED;

• Tutor's administrative motion, ECF No. 32, is DENIED; and

• The parties are instructed to comply with the Civil Local 

Rules and Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in all future

filings.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 26, 2015

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:15-cv-00303-SC Document 36 Filed 02/26/15 Page 4 of 4