Chung v. County of Santa Clara
- Martinez-Olguin
- 3:21-cv-07583
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Chung v. Rosen, Judge Martinez-Olguin allowed Rosen to file a second summary-judgment motion after remand.
Jeffrey F. Rosen may file a second motion for summary judgment. Daniel Chung must participate in preparing the proposed briefing schedule with Rosen.
What happened
In Daniel Chung v. Jeffrey F. Rosen, Rosen asked for permission to file a second motion for summary judgment after the case returned to the district court. Chung opposed the request, arguing that the proposed motion lacked merit.
The court explained that the issue at this stage was whether there was a good reason to allow another summary-judgment motion, not whether Rosen’s future motion would succeed. The court found that considering the remaining legal and factual issues before trial would help move the case forward and would not prejudice Chung.
Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin granted Rosen’s administrative motion for leave to file a second motion for summary judgment. The court also ordered the parties to meet and confer and jointly propose a briefing schedule by noon on May 29, 2025, for a hearing set for September 4, 2025.
The detailed version
- Chung v. County of Santa Clara · No. 3:21-cv-07583
- Martinez-Olguin
- May 21, 2025
Background
The court’s standing order generally limits each side to one motion for summary judgment unless the court grants permission for another motion. The Ninth Circuit had affirmed in part and reversed in part the district court’s ruling on Rosen’s first summary-judgment motion, leaving issues for the district court to examine on remand.
Rosen requested leave to file a second summary-judgment motion. Chung opposed the request, arguing that the proposed motion was meritless. The court stated that this argument addressed the future motion’s substance and was not the proper issue for deciding whether to grant permission to file it.
Ruling
The court applied a good-cause standard to the request. It concluded that a second motion could advance the litigation by testing the remaining legal and factual issues before the case was submitted to a jury. The court also determined that allowing the motion would not prejudice Chung.
Judge ARACELI MARTINEZ-OLGUIN granted Rosen’s administrative motion for leave to file a second motion for summary judgment. The court set a September 4, 2025 hearing at 2:00 p.m. and ordered the parties to meet and confer and jointly propose a briefing schedule by noon on May 29, 2025. The proposed schedule must leave at least four weeks between the reply brief and the hearing.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.