Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_17-cv-01971/USCOURTS-cand-3_17-cv-01971-10/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Stockholders Suits

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

HENRY MATOZA,

Plaintiff,

v.

THOR INDUSTRIES, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 17-cv-01971-MMC 

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Re: Dkt. No. 72

Before the Court is plaintiff Henry Matoza’s (“Matoza”) motion, filed August 17, 

2017, and currently noticed for hearing September 29, 2017, by which Matoza seeks, 

pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, partial summary judgment 

against all defendants in the above-titled action. In response, defendants filed the 

following: (1) defendants Automobile Protection Corporation, Warranty Support Services, 

LLC, APCO Holdings, LLC, and Ontario Teachers’ Pension Plan Board (collectively, 

“APCO Defendants”) filed, on August 30, 2017, an “Ex Parte Application,” asking the 

Court to continue the filing date for their opposition until a point in the proceedings after 

the Initial Case Management Conference, and (2) defendants Thor Industries, Inc. and 

Keystone RV Company (collectively, “Thor Defendants”), on August 31, 2017, filed an 

opposition/request for denial or continuance pursuant to Rule 56(d), by which Thor 

Defendants ask the Court to deny the motion or, in the alternative, defer ruling until 

defendants have had an opportunity to conduct discovery. Matoza has not filed a reply.

The Court, having read and considered the parties’ respective filings, deems the 

matters appropriate for determination thereon, VACATES the hearing scheduled for 

September 29, 2017, and rules as follows.

Case 3:17-cv-01971-MMC Document 86 Filed 09/14/17 Page 1 of 2
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

As defendants point out, Matoza’s motion is premature, as the Initial Case 

Management Conference is not scheduled to be held until November 17, 2017, and no 

discovery has been conducted. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(d) (providing “[i]f a nonmovant 

shows by affidavit or declaration that, for specified reasons, it cannot present facts 

essential to justify its opposition, the court may . . . defer considering the motion or deny 

it”); (see, e.g., Barker Decl. ¶¶ 5, 7 (delineating areas of discovery having potential to 

“raise genuine issues of material fact”)). 

Accordingly, Thor Defendants’ request for denial pursuant to Rule 56(d) is hereby 

GRANTED, APCO Defendants’ application for a continuance is hereby DENIED as moot, 

and Matoza’s motion for partial summary judgment is hereby DENIED without prejudice 

to refiling at a later stage of the proceedings. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 14, 2017

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:17-cv-01971-MMC Document 86 Filed 09/14/17 Page 2 of 2