Casa Nido Partnership v. Kwon

Background

Casa Nido Partnership moved for permission to file a second motion for summary judgment against five remaining defendants: Catherine O’Hanks, Sandra Kate Vernell, Earl Ray Anderson, Lynne Marie Garibotti, and the Estate of Jae Kwon. Casa Nido’s first summary-judgment motion was against Sentry Insurance Company. The court had granted that motion in part and denied it in part, but that earlier order addressed only insurance-contract liability.

The proposed second motion concerns claims identified in the opinion as involving the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, the Carpenter-Presley-Tanner Hazardous Substance Act, innocent landowner liability, water pollution under the Porter-Cologne Act, per se nuisance, negligence, and negligence per se. The court stated that these claims and defendants were entirely distinct from the insurance-contract claim against Sentry.

Casa Nido also requested permission to file a brief of up to 40 pages instead of the 25-page limit in Civil Local Rule 7-2(b).

Court’s Analysis

The court explained that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 does not prohibit multiple summary-judgment motions and that district courts have discretion to allow successive motions. Judge Chen’s standing order generally limits a party to one summary-judgment motion unless the court grants permission to file another.

The court found permission appropriate because the second motion involved different parties and causes of action from the first motion. It concluded that considering those issues at the summary-judgment stage would promote a just, speedy, and inexpensive resolution of the case and would not prejudice the five individual defendants. The court also addressed the fact that Jae Kwon had died and had been without representation while the motion was pending, but still found permission justified.

Disposition

The court granted Casa Nido’s motion for leave to file a second motion for summary judgment. It also granted leave to file an oversized brief of up to 30 pages, rather than the requested 40 pages. The court vacated the February 22, 2024 hearing and stated that the order disposed of Docket No. 203. This order granted permission to file the motion; it did not rule on the merits of the underlying claims.