Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00181/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00181-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 15:2301 Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act

---

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

STEVE CARLSON; TARA 

CARLSON; and KAREN 

PEARSON,

NO. CIV. S-05-181 LKK/GGH

Plaintiffs,

v. O R D E R

MONACO COACH CORPORATION,

Defendant.

 /

Plaintiffs have filed a motion for summary judgment seeking

to resolve all four causes of action in this case. Defendants

filed an opposition and a cross-motion for partial summary judgment

on the first and second causes of action (those under the

Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act). Defendants also ask the court

to continue the hearing regarding this motion to a later date in

order to allow for additional discovery necessary to gain facts to

support their opposition as well as to help formulate their

affirmative defenses. 

Case 2:05-cv-00181-LKK-GGH Document 52 Filed 09/15/05 Page 1 of 5
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

2

Rule 56(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allows a

party to avoid summary judgment where affidavits are not available

which are necessary to support a party’s opposition to the motion

for summary judgment. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(f). Rule 56(f) motions

are to be granted freely where the party requesting additional time

has complied with the Rule’s requirements. Burlington Northern

Santa Fe R. Co. v. Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes of Fort Peck

Reservation, 323 F.3d 767, 773-774 (9th Cir. 2003); Metabolife

Int'l, Inc. v. Wornick, 264 F.3d 832, 846 (9th Cir. 2001). In

order to be successful on a 56(f) motion, the party must show (1)

that they have set forth in affidavit form the specific facts that

they hope to elicit from further discovery, (2) that the facts

sought exist, and (3) that these sought-after facts are “essential”

to resist the summary judgment motion. State of Cal., on Behalf

of California Dept. of Toxic Substances Control v. Campbell, 138

F.3d 772, 779 (9th Cir. 1998); see also VISA Intern. Service Ass'n

v. Bankcard Holders of America, 784 F.2d 1472, 1475 (9th Cir. 1986)

(“[D]enial of a Rule 56(f) application is generally disfavored

where the party opposing summary judgment makes (a) a timely

application which (b) specifically identifies (c) relevant

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

information sought actually exists.”).

Defendants have submitted a declaration by William F. Wraith

(attorney for defendants) which sets out the following areas in

which they hope to gather information if further discovery is

granted: information on plaintiffs’ use of the Motor Home for

Case 2:05-cv-00181-LKK-GGH Document 52 Filed 09/15/05 Page 2 of 5
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

3

purposes of determining the applicability of Song-Beverly; and

information on the involvement of the retail dealer’s sales

regarding plaintiffs’ registration. Wraith Dec. at ¶¶ 8-9. The

separate statement of disputed facts further refers to the Wraith

declaration in disputing questions such as whether the vehicle was

purchased for personal use only, whether the dealer submitted the

required documents to the California Department of Motor Vehicles,

where the vehicle was registered, etc. Defs.’ Sep. Stmt. at 4-7.

The declaration of Wraith indicates that he “intends to use

the additional time to analyze Plaintiffs’ discovery responses to

Special Interrogatories and Requests for Production” which were

propounded on August 26, 2005 (ten days after the motion for

summary judgment was filed by plaintiffs). The declaration says

that the depositions “will gain information” on the plaintiffs’ use

of the Motor Home, but does not specifically say whether the

information they seek on the registration, etc. exists (although

the court cannot think of any reason why the registration and/or

other documentary proof would not exist). 

The opposition and cross-motion argues that the additional

time for discovery will enable defendants to further develop their

affirmative defenses which plaintiffs seek to have stricken. They

argue that they have a right to raise all possible affirmative

defenses and go on to note that their third affirmative defense,

which alleges that unreasonable conduct by plaintiff reduces

defendants liability, is a valid affirmative defense. It does

appear that defendants would need to conduct depositions of the

Case 2:05-cv-00181-LKK-GGH Document 52 Filed 09/15/05 Page 3 of 5
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

4

plaintiffs in order to determine whether they did indeed

unreasonably use the motor home amongst other things. 

Pursuant to the Status Order issued on May 19, 2005,

discovery is set to be completed by December 15, 2005 and

non-dispositive as well as dispositive motions are due by February

15, 2006. The answer in this case was filed on May 27, 2005. The

declaration by Wraith says that, in addition to the Special

Interrogatories referenced above, he has noticed plaintiffs’

depositions for October 19, 2005 (although they may be pushed back

due to opposing counsel’s schedule). 56(f) motions should be

granted liberally “unless the non-moving party has not diligently

pursued discovery of the evidence.” Wichita Falls Office Assoc.

v. Banc One Corp., 978 F.2d 915, 919 n. 4 (5th Cir.1992). Since

discovery does not close until December, the court cannot find that

the defendants have been dilatory in pursuing discovery. The Ninth

Circuit has also held that denial of 56(f) motions is “especially

inappropriate where the material sought is also the subject of

outstanding discovery requests.” VISA Intern. Service Ass'n, 784

F.2d at 1475. According to defendants, there are at least two

discovery requests outstanding.

Applying the liberal standard noted above, the court finds

that the defendants have complied with the requirements of Rule

56(f) and the motion is GRANTED. Plaintiffs’ motion for summary

judgment is thus DENIED without prejudice to renewal after the

close of discovery on December 15, 2005. The cross-motion is

likewise DENIED without prejudice to renewal. If plaintiffs wish

Case 2:05-cv-00181-LKK-GGH Document 52 Filed 09/15/05 Page 4 of 5
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

5

to object to this order, they must do so by September 20, 2005.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: September 14, 2005

/s/Lawrence K. Karlton 

LAWRENCE K. KARLTON

SENIOR JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case 2:05-cv-00181-LKK-GGH Document 52 Filed 09/15/05 Page 5 of 5