Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-04492/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-04492-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 110
Nature of Suit: Insurance
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Injunctive &amp; Declaratory Relief

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

 Citations are to the Electronic Case File (“ECF”); pin cites are to the ECF-generated numbers

at the tops of documents.

ORDER

C 14-4492 LB

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

San Francisco Division

KATHLEEN KOTTOM,

Plaintiff,

v.

ALBERT D. WALKER and

FARMERS NEW WORLD LIFE

INSURANCE COMPANY,

Defendants.

___________________________________/

No. C 14-4492 LB

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S

ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION AND

DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE

DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY-JUDGMENT

MOTION

[RE: ECF NOS. 40, 42] 

INTRODUCTION

This lawsuit is about the rightful beneficiary to an life insurance policy. The decedent’s widow

Kathleen Kottom sued the decedent’s former business partner Albert Walker to settle the issue.

(ECF No. 1)1

 Farmers is a defendant and interpleaded the $1 million policy amount. The issue now

is Mr. Walker’s summary-judgment motion, which he filed on March 23, 2015. (ECF No. 40.) Ms.

Kottom filed an administrative motion, and then her opposition, saying that the motion is premature.

(ECF Nos. 42, 45.) For the reasons stated herein, the court agrees and denies without prejudice the

summary-judgment motion as premature.

Case 3:14-cv-04492-LB Document 46 Filed 04/10/15 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

ORDER

C 14-4492 LB 2

STATEMENT

The following additional facts are relevant. The court held an initial case-management

conference on January 15, 2015. (ECF No. 33.) The case-management statement discussed the

parties’ ongoing business relationship in what may be a declining business, Ms. Kottom’s

allegations that Mr. Walker may have breached his fiduciary duties, and her possible amendment of

the pleadings following a forensic audit of the business’s books. (ECF No. 28 at 5.) For those

reasons, and based on a strategy of working toward private mediation in mid-May, the court set the

deadline to amend the pleadings to May 28, 2015, which is beyond the court’s customary twomonths pleadings cut-off.

Thereafter, Mr. Walker filed his summary-judgment motion. (ECF No. 40.) On March 31, 2015,

Ms. Kottom filed an administrative motion to continue the summary-judgment hearing, saying

among other things that it is premature, facts were still developing through discovery, and mediation

is scheduled for mid-May. (ECF No. 42.) The court waited the requisite four days to rule on the

motion to give Mr. Walker time to file any opposition, which he did on April 3, 2015. (ECF No. 43.)

In it, he notes that Plaintiff initially asked him only for a two-week extension and suggests that the

summary-judgment motion is easily addressed based only on evidence of the insurance policy itself.

(Id.) On April 9, 2015, Mr. Walker filed a notice that Plaintiff had not timely opposed his summaryjudgment motion and that her administrative motion was not a sufficient opposition. (ECF No. 44.) 

On April 10, 2015, Plaintiff filed her opposition, reiterating her objections to the early summaryjudgment motion. (ECF NO. 45.)

ANALYSIS

The court’s strategy was to allow the parties to focus on mediation first without the spend that

might attend unnecessary litigation, including premature amendment of the pleadings. That may

have been implicit in the court’s case-management order, but it was at least somewhat explicit at the

case-management conference. The court is not opposed to early summary-judgment motions because

often they can refine litigation. It generally expects to discuss the timing of early motions at a casemanagement conference that also addresses the interplay between motion and discovery. Another

timing issue often is how a motion affects settlement negotiations. And here, the court’s take-away

Case 3:14-cv-04492-LB Document 46 Filed 04/10/15 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

ORDER

C 14-4492 LB

from the January case-management conference was that the parties’ personal and business dynamics

might be better addressed by trying to do some discovery about the state of the business (even if

those claims are not yet part of the litigation) and then making a good effort to resolve them through

mediation.

That remains the court’s view. There is plenty of time for an early summary-judgment motion

before a big spend on discovery, and there is room to adjust fact-discovery deadlines (without

affecting the trial date) to accommodate the process. Also, the court’s view is that generally the

pleadings should be settled before a summary-judgment motion. 

These issues and the timing of any early summary-judgment motion can be discussed at the next

case-management conference on May 28, 2015. To avoid a premature rush to amend the pleadings

before the parties update the court about their mediation, the court extends the date to amend the

pleadings to June 11, 2015. 

The parties are free to put the case on the court’s case-management calendar in April if their

views on timing are different. 

CONCLUSION

The court grants in part Plaintiff’s motion to extend the time period to extend the time period to

hear Defendant’s summary-judgment motion. The court does not extend the time period until

September and instead will address timing issues at the May case-management conference. 

For administrative reasons, the court denies the pending summary-judgment motion without

prejudice. After the court confers with the parties about the scheduling, Defendant may re-notice the

same motion by a one-page motion that cross-references the earlier-filed motion. Plaintiff thereafter

must respond on the ordinary five-week briefing schedule.

This disposes of ECF Nos. 40 and 42.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 10, 2015 __________________________

LAUREL BEELER

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:14-cv-04492-LB Document 46 Filed 04/10/15 Page 3 of 3