Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_11-cv-02753/USCOURTS-cand-4_11-cv-02753-29/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 850
Nature of Suit: Securities, Commodities, Exchange
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SUZANNE D. JACKSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

WILLIAM FISCHER, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 11-cv-2753-PJH 

ORDER

Before the court is the administrative motion of plaintiff Suzanne Jackson seeking 

a case management conference (“CMC”) to either “consolidate motion practice and 

establish a sequence of motions to be filed and stay further filings until the conference” or 

“determine whether a joint or separate statement of undisputed facts be undertaken by 

the parties in connection with plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment.” Plaintiff filed the 

motion on July 7, 2015, and three groups of defendants each filed an opposition, on July 

8, 9, and 10, 2015, respectively. Having read the parties’ papers and carefully 

considered their arguments, the court hereby DENIES the motion.

First, except for the request for a CMC, the issues raised in plaintiff’s motion are 

not appropriate for resolution by means of an administrative motion, which pursuant to 

Civil Local Rule 7-11 is intended for resolution of “miscellaneous administrative matters,

not otherwise governed by a federal statute, Federal or local rule or standing order of the 

assigned judge.” Plaintiff’s request that the court modify its prior order regarding the 

sequencing of motions does not fall under the category of “miscellaneous administrative 

matters.”

As for the request that the court schedule a CMC, the court sees no necessity for 

a CMC until the pleadings are settled. Plaintiff seems to be suggesting that the court 

Case 4:11-cv-02753-PJH Document 289 Filed 07/16/15 Page 1 of 3
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

Northern District of California

should decline to rule on the pending motions to dismiss, and should instead set a 

schedule for motions for summary judgment without resolving the disputes concerning 

the pleadings. That proposal is unacceptable.

The court held a CMC on April 10, 2014. At that time, the court set a sequence for 

further motion practice in this case – (1) a consolidated motion for judgment on the 

pleadings as to whether the third amended complaint (TAC) stated a claim for primary 

liability against defendant William Fischer; (2) a motion on the issue-preclusive effect of 

the bankruptcy adjudication as to Fischer; (3) a motion for summary judgment as to the 

primary liability of Fischer; and (4) a motion for summary judgment as to the secondary 

liability of the remaining defendants. 

Only the first of these motions has been filed and heard. On March 13, 2015, the 

court issued an order granting the motion in part and denying it in part. The court granted 

leave to amend, largely to allow plaintiff to replead certain claims, incorporating facts that 

she had attempted to include in her opposition to the motion but which had never been 

pled in any complaint. The court also directed plaintiff to remove from the complaint all 

allegations relating to parties and claims no longer in the case. Once the fourth amended 

complaint (4thAC) had been filed, defendants were of course entitled to file further 

motions to dismiss. Plaintiff objects to that procedure, for some poorly-articulated 

reason.

Instead, she wants to move directly to summary judgment, and wants the court to 

issue an order regarding the filing of either joint or separate statements of undisputed 

facts. Taking the second issue first, the undersigned judge does not permit the filing of 

separate statements of undisputed facts, as plaintiff’s counsel would know if they had 

read the undersigned judge’s standard pretrial instructions order on the court’s website. 

As for joint statements of undisputed facts, the court permits those only if all parties agree 

that the facts are undisputed. That is a matter to be resolved among counsel, not an 

issue to be brought to the court.

As for moving directly to summary judgment, the court will not entertain any motion 

Case 4:11-cv-02753-PJH Document 289 Filed 07/16/15 Page 2 of 3
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

Northern District of California

for summary judgment until the pleadings are settled and the parties have been able to 

engage in discovery. Plaintiff, it appears, conducted a considerable amount of discovery 

in connection with the adversary proceeding in Fischer’s Minnesota bankruptcy case. 

However, this is a separate action, and the defendants herein were not parties to the 

adversary proceeding. In any private action arising under the PSLRA, “all discovery and 

other proceedings shall be stayed during the pendency of any motion to dismiss, unless 

the court finds upon the motion of any party that particularized discovery is necessary to 

preserve evidence or to prevent undue prejudice to that party.” 15 U.S.C. §§ 77z-1(b)(1), 

78u-4(b)(3)(B); see Petrie v. Elec. Game Card, Inc., 761 F.3d 959, 966 (9th Cir. 2014). 

Thus, while motions to dismiss are pending, the parties may not engage in discovery, and 

the court will not compel defendants to file a motion for summary judgment (or defend 

against such a motion) if they have not been afforded the opportunity to conduct the 

necessary discovery.

It is true that the original complaint in this action was filed more than four years 

ago. However, the fact that the case is not yet at issue despite the filing and briefing of 

multiple rounds of motions is almost entirely attributable to plaintiff’s decision to file a 

complaint asserting multiple claims against multiple unrelated defendants, while also 

failing to assert facts rather than conclusions and failing to connect the dots. Plaintiff’s 

inarticulate and largely incomprehensible pleadings have prompted the various 

responses from defendants and have also hampered the court’s ability to move this case 

forward. 

Plaintiff’s request is unreasonable and unsupported by law, and is therefore 

DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 16, 2015

__________________________________

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

Case 4:11-cv-02753-PJH Document 289 Filed 07/16/15 Page 3 of 3