Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-01189/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-01189-21/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 220
Nature of Suit: Foreclosure
Cause of Action: 28:1444 Petition for Removal- Foreclosure

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GENET HABTEMARIAM,

Plaintiff,

v.

PNC BANK, NATIONAL 

ASSOCIATION, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:16-cv-01189-DC-AC

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT PNC 

BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION’S 

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A SECOND 

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

(Doc. No. 183)

This matter is before the court on Defendant PNC Bank, National Association’s (“PNC 

Bank”) motion for leave to file a second motion for summary judgment. (Doc. No. 183.) Pursuant 

to Local Rule 230(g), the pending motion was taken under submission to be decided on the 

papers. (Doc. No. 191.) For the reasons explained below, the court will grant Defendant PNC 

Bank’s motion. 

On June 2, 2016, the court issued an initial pretrial scheduling order setting the fact 

discovery deadline “no later than 365 days from the filing of the original complaint.” (Doc. No. 4 

at 3.) Pursuant to that scheduling order, the deadline to file dispositive motions was “no later than 

180 days after the close of fact discovery.” (Id. at 5.) That scheduling order also directed the 

parties to address all issues they wished to resolve on summary judgment in one motion or crossmotion and to seek leave of court to file any additional motion for summary judgment. (Id.)

On May 22, 2020, Defendants PNC Bank and Vida Capital Group, LLC (“Vida Capital 

Case 2:16-cv-01189-DC-AC Document 193 Filed 12/26/24 Page 1 of 4
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

Group”) filed a motion for summary judgment in their favor on all of Plaintiff’s claims brought 

against them. (Doc. Nos. 116, 118.) On May 17, 2021, the court denied the motion for all but one 

claim. (Doc. No. 122.)

Several modifications have been made to the initial scheduling order, including after the 

court’s ruling on Defendants’ first motion for summary judgment. (See e.g., Doc. Nos. 101, 110, 

115, 175). Most recently, on March 22, 2024, the court granted Defendants PNC Bank and Vida 

Capital Group’s joint administrative motion to amend the scheduling order to reopen and extend 

the fact discovery cutoff deadline under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16. (Doc. No. 175.) The 

court reopened discovery for the limited purpose of allowing Defendants PNC Bank and Vida 

Capital Group to take discovery on Plaintiff’s alleged damages, including but not limited to the 

following topics: “(1) Plaintiff’s rental of the Property located at 7 Shipman Court, Sacramento, 

CA 95823, and any income derived therefrom; (2) Plaintiff’s alleged continued servicing of the 

mortgage currently held by Gateway Bank, N.A., and (3) any additional damages Plaintiff 

allegedly suffered since discovery closed in 2019.” (Id. at 1–2.) The court ordered Defendants 

PNC Bank and Vida Capital Group to complete this limited discovery by no later than 150 days 

after the order was signed on March 22, 2024, meaning by August 19, 2024. (Id. at 2.) 

Consequently, the deadline to file dispositive motions is February 18, 2025, 180 days after the

August 19, 2024 discovery deadline.

On October 14, 2024, Defendant PNC Bank filed the pending motion for leave to file a 

second motion for summary judgment. (Doc. No. 183.) Defendant PNC Bank’s proposed second 

motion for summary judgment is based solely on a statute of limitations defense, which was not 

raised in its first motion for summary judgment. (Id. at 6; see also Doc. No. 183-1.) Defendant 

PNC Bank contends that at Plaintiff’s renewed deposition on July 26, 2024 and August 26, 2024, 

she “revealed, for the first time, that in 2011 Plaintiff (a) discovered that PNC was not treating her 

second mortgage loan as forgiven or canceled, and (b) suffered damage from PNC’s treatment of 

the loan as still due and delinquent.” (Doc. No. 183 at 2.) Therefore, Defendant PNC Bank 

intends to argue Plaintiff’s claims against it “accrued no later than 2011 and that the applicable 

statute of limitation[s] expired on her claims against PNC before she filed this suit in May 2016.” 

Case 2:16-cv-01189-DC-AC Document 193 Filed 12/26/24 Page 2 of 4
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

(Id.) Plaintiff did not file an opposition to Defendant PNC Bank’s motion for leave to file a 

second motion for summary judgment. 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 does not limit the number of summary judgment 

motions that a party may file. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56. The Ninth Circuit has explicitly held 

“district courts have discretion to entertain successive motions for summary judgment.” Hoffman 

v. Tonnemacher, 593 F.3d 908, 911 (9th Cir. 2010). Because the “denial of summary judgment 

does not preclude a contrary later grant of summary judgment,” allowing a party to “file a second 

motion for summary judgment is logical, and it fosters the ‘just, speedy, and inexpensive’ 

resolution of suits.” Id. (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 1). “[A] successive motion for summary 

judgment is particularly appropriate on an expanded factual record.” Id. Nevertheless, “district 

courts retain discretion to ‘weed out frivolous or simply repetitive motions.’” Id. 

Here, Defendant PNC Bank seeks to move for summary judgment a second time based 

solely on a statute of limitations defense not raised in its initial motion for summary judgment. 

(Doc. No. 183 at 6.) Defendant PNC Bank contends that new evidence—Plaintiff’s deposition 

testimony from July and August 2024—shows that Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant PNC 

Bank accrued in 2011 when she allegedly became aware of harm to her credit caused by PNC’s 

reporting of her “cancelled” loan. (Doc. No. 183-1 at 4.) Defendant PNC Bank asserts that the 

statute of limitations on Plaintiff’s claims is four years. (Id. at 8.) Because Plaintiff filed her 

complaint in 2016, Defendant PNC Bank asserts her claims are barred by the applicable statute of 

limitations. As noted, Plaintiff did not file an opposition to Defendant PNC Bank’s pending 

motion. Pursuant to Local Rule 230(c), the court construes Plaintiff failure to file a timely 

opposition as a non-opposition to the motion. 

In light of the expanded factual record, the court will exercise its discretion and will grant

Defendant PNC Bank’s motion for leave to file a second motion for summary judgment.1 The 

court finds the proposed second motion for summary judgment is neither frivolous nor repetitive. 

1 The court notes that a modification of the scheduling order is not required for Defendant PNC 

Bank to file a second motion for summary judgment because the February 18, 2025 filing 

deadline has not passed.

Case 2:16-cv-01189-DC-AC Document 193 Filed 12/26/24 Page 3 of 4
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

Accordingly, Defendant PNC Bank’s motion for leave to file a second motion for 

summary judgment (Doc. No. 183) is granted.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 23, 2024 ___________________________

Dena Coggins

United States District Judge

Case 2:16-cv-01189-DC-AC Document 193 Filed 12/26/24 Page 4 of 4