Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_03-cv-04829/USCOURTS-cand-5_03-cv-04829-21/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 423
Nature of Suit: Bankruptcy Withdrawal 28 USC 157
Cause of Action: 28:0157 Motion for Withdrawal of Reference

---

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

1

 This disposition is not designated for publication and may not be cited.

Case No. C 03-03394 JF (PVT) and C 03-04829 JF (PVT)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PRESENT FURTHER ARGUMENT AND/OR TO

FILE A MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 

(JFLC1)

**E-Filed 2/23/06**

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

EDWARD L. SCARFF, et al.,

 Plaintiffs,

 v.

WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., et al.,

 Defendants.

Case Number C 03-03394 JF (PVT)

 C 03-04829 JF (PVT)

ORDER1 DENYING PLAINTIFFS’

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PRESENT

FURTHER ARGUMENT AND/OR TO

FILE A MOTION FOR

RECONSIDERATION 

On January 6, 2006, the Court heard oral argument with respect to five motions in the

instant action: (1) Defendant Comerica Bank (“Comerica”) moved for partial summary

adjudication on the issue of damages; (2) Defendants Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (“Wells Fargo”)

and Carol Barber (“Barber”) moved for summary judgment on Plaintiffs’ third, fourth, sixth,

ninth, eleventh, twelfth, and fourteenth claims; (3) Defendant Kelly Hvegholm (“Hvegholm”)

moved for summary judgment on Plaintiffs’ third and fourth claims; (4) Defendants Intuit Inc.

(“Intuit”), Computing Resources Inc. (“CRI”), and Lisa Ciccotti (“Ciccotti”) moved for summary

Case 5:03-cv-04829-JF Document 240 Filed 02/23/06 Page 1 of 7
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

2

Case No. C 03-03394 JF (PVT) and C 03-04829 JF (PVT)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PRESENT FURTHER ARGUMENT AND/OR TO

FILE A MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

(JFLC1)

judgment on Plaintiffs’ third and fourth claim (Wells Fargo, Barber, and Hvegholm joined in this

motion); (5) Wells Fargo, Intuit, CRI, Barber, and Ciccotti moved to exclude the expert

declarations of John Britt (“Britt”), Vicki Lambert (“Lambert”), and David Moore (“Moore”)

(Comerica joined in this motion as to the declarations of Britt and Moore, and Hvegholm joined

as to the declaration of Lambert). 

On January 11, 2006, in light of the proximity of the then-scheduled trial date, the Court

issued a Memorandum of Intended Disposition. On January 19, 2006, Plaintiffs, pursuant to

Civil Local Rule 7-9, filed a motion for leave to present further argument and/or to file a motion

for reconsideration with respect to this Memorandum. Plaintiffs correctly suggest that it is within

the discretion of the Court to modify a disposition prior to the issuance of a final ruling. See,

e.g., Mayo v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc., 258 F. Supp. 2d 1097, 1103 (N.D. Cal. 2003). 

However, in this instance the Court, in the exercise of that discretion, declines to do so. The

Court issued the Memorandum of Intended Disposition principally to assist the parties in

assessing the practicability of the former trial date and in preparing for a scheduled mediation; it

did not intend to invite what Defendants fairly characterize as a sur-reply brief on behalf of

Plaintiffs. While Plaintiffs represent that the purpose of the motion is to assist the Court in

clarifying certain arguments, the brief in support of the motion addresses dispositive factual and

legal issues that Plaintiffs wholly failed to address in their opposition to Defendants’ original

motions. Under these circumstances, granting the instant motion would give Plaintiffs an unfair

advantage by allowing them to remedy their own omissions after being advised of the Court’s

intended ruling.

Plaintiffs argue that the Court nonetheless should grant the instant motion on the ground

that they were not given sufficient time to present their case at oral argument. Plaintiffs

misperceive the purpose of oral argument. “Oral argument—as this court routinely makes clear

to counsel—is an opportunity for the court to ask questions, often to give counsel a chance to

address a particular judge’s tentative conclusions to clarify or even persuade the judge to change

his or her mind.” Kennedy v. Lockyer, 379 F.3d 1041, 1058 (9th Cir. 2004) (Fisher, J.,

Case 5:03-cv-04829-JF Document 240 Filed 02/23/06 Page 2 of 7
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

3

Case No. C 03-03394 JF (PVT) and C 03-04829 JF (PVT)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PRESENT FURTHER ARGUMENT AND/OR TO

FILE A MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

(JFLC1)

concurring) (discussing the role of oral argument in the circuit court); see also, Cline v.

Commissioner of Social Sec., 96 F.3d 146, 150 (6th Cir. 1996) (“the primary purpose of oral

argument is for the judge to ask questions”) (discussing the role of oral argument in the district

court). 

Plaintiffs’ suggestion that the Court did not permit them sufficient time for oral argument

ignores the fact that Plaintiffs’ opposition briefs failed to address numerous issues raised by

Defendants’ motions for summary judgment. It is not the Court’s task to “‘scour the record in

search of a genuine issue of triable fact.’” Keenan v. Allan, 91 F.3d 1275, 1279 (9th Cir. 1996). 

As the Ninth Circuit has held:

[T]he district court may determine whether there is a genuine issue of fact, on

summary judgment, based on the papers submitted on the motion and such other

papers as may be on file and specifically referred to and facts therein set forth in

the motion papers. Though the court has discretion in appropriate circumstances

to consider other materials, it need not do so. The district court need not examine

the entire file for evidence establishing a genuine issue of fact, where the evidence

is not set forth in the opposing papers with adequate references so that it could

conveniently be found.

Carmen v. San Francisco Unified School Dist., 237 F.3d 1026, 1031 (9th Cir. 2001). 

To cite the most obvious example of this, Plaintiffs’ opposition papers contained no

response to the argument of Intuit et al. regarding the absence of evidence of damages traceable

to the alleged “payroll scheme.” The Court specifically inquired as to whether there was any

such evidence during oral argument. In response, Plaintiffs’ counsel indicated that such evidence

is “in the answers to interrogatories.” This response confirmed the Court’s initial conclusion that

Plaintiffs had not met their burden of “[setting] forth in the opposing papers with adequate

references [evidence establishing a genuine issue of fact] so that it [can] conveniently be found.” 

Id. Although Plaintiffs arguably identify evidence of such damages in their motion for

reconsideration, the very fact that they have done so demonstrates the significance of their failure

to set forth that evidence in their opposition papers. Indeed, Plaintiffs now identify dozens of

interrogatory responses that appear to relate to the issue of damages, and they have submitted

numerous charts depicting the transfer of funds in the alleged credit line and payroll schemes. 

Case 5:03-cv-04829-JF Document 240 Filed 02/23/06 Page 3 of 7
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

4

Case No. C 03-03394 JF (PVT) and C 03-04829 JF (PVT)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PRESENT FURTHER ARGUMENT AND/OR TO

FILE A MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

(JFLC1)

Yet even with the aid of these additional submissions, the precise flow of funds from various

accounts through payroll processing to Huang is far from clear. Plaintiffs have made very little

effort to explain in detail how the evidence cited in the interrogatory responses rebuts the

argument of Intuit et al. that there is no evidence that Plaintiffs actually were damaged by the

payroll scheme. Given the extraordinary length of the briefings, the sheer volume of the relevant

evidence, the complexity of the financial scheme, and the generality of their arguments, Plaintiffs

could not reasonably have believed that the Court would scour the record for evidence of

damages and, without guidance from Plaintiffs, piece the evidence together in such a way as to

demonstrate that traceable damages actually occurred.

Accordingly, the Court will deny the instant motion for leave to present further argument

and/or to file a motion for reconsideration of this Memorandum of Intended Disposition. This

ruling is without prejudice to a motion for leave to file for reconsideration of the Court’s final

order on Defendants’ motions, which order is issued simultaneously herewith. However, while

the Court would consider such a motion carefully, it would do so only if Plaintiffs first meet the

stringent requirements of Civil Local Rule 7-9, which requires that the party seeking leave to file

a motion for reconsideration show:

(1) That at the time of the motion for leave, a material difference in fact

or law exists from that which was presented to the Court before entry of the

interlocutory order for which reconsideration is sought. The party also must show

that in the exercise of reasonable diligence the party applying for reconsideration

did not know such fact or law at the time of the interlocutory order; or

(2) The emergence of new material facts or a change of law occurring

after the time of such order; or

(3) A manifest failure by the Court to consider material facts or

dispositive legal arguments which were presented to the Court before such

interlocutory order.

Civ. L. R. 7-9(b) (emphasis added).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Case 5:03-cv-04829-JF Document 240 Filed 02/23/06 Page 4 of 7
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

5

Case No. C 03-03394 JF (PVT) and C 03-04829 JF (PVT)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PRESENT FURTHER ARGUMENT AND/OR TO

FILE A MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

(JFLC1)

DATED: February 23, 2006

______________________

JEREMY FOGEL

United States District Judge

Case 5:03-cv-04829-JF Document 240 Filed 02/23/06 Page 5 of 7
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

6

Case No. C 03-03394 JF (PVT) and C 03-04829 JF (PVT)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PRESENT FURTHER ARGUMENT AND/OR TO

FILE A MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

(JFLC1)

This Order has been served upon the following persons:

Rebecca M. Archer EfilingRMA@cpdb.com, rmg@cpdb.com

Jonathan R. Bass EfilingJRB@cpdb.com, mjc@cpdb.com

William Bates , III bill.bates@bingham.com

Carolyn Chang cchang@fenwick.com, vschmitt@fenwick.com

A. Marisa Chun EfilingAMC@cpdb.com, pjd@cpdb.com

Joseph W. Cotchett plee@cpsmlaw.com,

Joseph N. Demko JND@JMBM.com, eap@jmbm.com

John W. Easterbrook jwe@hopkinscarley.com, dgraff@hopkinscarley.com

Gilbert Eisenberg g.eisenberg@sbcglobal.net,

William Henry Gavin gavin@gclitigation.com,

Philip L. Gregory pgregory@cpsmlaw.com, jacosta@cpsmlaw.com

Alan F. Hunter hunter@gclitigation.com,

Susan K. Jamison EfilingSKJ@cpdb.com, aaa@cpdb.com

William S. Klein bklein@hopkinscarley.com, ttellez@hopkinscarley.com

Martin H. Kresse mkresse1@earthlink.net,

C. Laine Lucas lainelucas@bindermalter.com,

Julian W. Mack pmack@ buchalter.com,

Frank M. Pitre fpitre@cpsmlaw.com, mnewman@cpsmlaw.com;

rmanuel@cpsmlaw.com

Elizabeth C Pritzker epritzker@cpsmlaw.com, zml@girardgibbs.com

Dori Lynn Yob dyob@hopkinscarley.com, ash@hopkinscarley.com

Peter G. Bertrand

Buchalter Nemer Fields & Younger

333 Market Street, 29th Floor

San Francisco, CA 94105-2130

Heinz Binder

Binder & Malter LLP

2775 Park Avenue

Santa Clara, CA 95050

Case 5:03-cv-04829-JF Document 240 Filed 02/23/06 Page 6 of 7
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

7

Case No. C 03-03394 JF (PVT) and C 03-04829 JF (PVT)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PRESENT FURTHER ARGUMENT AND/OR TO

FILE A MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

(JFLC1)

Jennifer Coleman

Jeffer Mangels Butler & Marmaro LLP

Two Embarcadero Center

Fifth Floor

San Francisco, CA 94111-3824

Tod C. Gurney

Hopkins & Carley

70 S. First Street

San Jose, CA 95113

tgurney@hopkinscarley.com, ttellez@hopkinscarley.com

Robert G. Harris

Binder & Malter, LLP

2775 Park Avenue

Santa Clara, CA 95050

Nanci E. Nishimura

Cotchett Pitre Simon & McCarthy

840 Malcolm Road

USBC Manager-San Jose

US Bankruptcy Court

280 South First Street

Room 3035

San Jose, CA 95113

Arthur S. Weissbrodt

U.S. Bankruptcy Court

280 South First Street

Room 3035

San Jose, CA 95113

Suite 200

Burlingame, CA 94010

Case 5:03-cv-04829-JF Document 240 Filed 02/23/06 Page 7 of 7