Lessin v. Ford Motor Company
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- On appeal
- Lessin v. Ford Motor Company (2026-02-11) — reversed in part — the Ninth Circuit's later ruling on this docket
- Panel
- Anthony J. Battaglia (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed Defendant Ford Motor Company's motion for partial summary judgment and found that Plaintiffs' opposition was inadequately supported by citations to the evidentiary record. The court continued the hearing on the motion and related matters to November 7, 2024, and ordered Plaintiffs to file a revised opposition brief with specific page citations by August 23, 2024.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Continued the hearing on the Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, Motion for Class Certification, and Motions to Exclude Expert Opinions to November 7, 2024.“Accordingly, the Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment, (Doc. No. 122), Motion for Class Certification, (Doc. No. 120), and the Motions to Exclude Expert Opinions, (Doc. Nos. 137, 139, 150, 151, and 152), is CONTINUED to Thursday, November 7, 2024 at 2:00 p.m.” | agree with court The court exercised its inherent authority to manage its docket and ensure a fair adjudication. The decision to continue the hearing is a procedural matter within the court's discretion, particularly given the identified deficiencies in the briefing that would otherwise prejudice the parties or the court's ability to rule. |
Ordered Plaintiffs to file a revised opposition brief with specific exhibit and page citations by August 23, 2024.“Accordingly, the Court ORDERS Plaintiffs to file a revised opposition brief setting forth specific exhibits, with citations to specific pages, that support their position no later than August 23, 2024.” | agree with court The court correctly identified that the opposition failed to meet the burden of citing specific evidence in the record, relying instead on cross-references to other motions and vague citations. Requiring specific citations is a standard and necessary procedural step to allow the court to evaluate the summary judgment motion properly. |
Ordered Ford to file a revised reply brief by August 30, 2024.“Ford is further afforded an opportunity to revise its reply brief, and the Court ORDERS the reply brief be filed no later than August 30, 2024.” | agree with court Granting the moving party an opportunity to respond to the revised opposition is procedurally fair and ensures both sides have a full opportunity to be heard on the new arguments or clarifications provided in the revised brief. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It correctly identifies a specific deficiency in the Plaintiffs' briefing (lack of specific record citations) and cites appropriate authority for the proposition that courts are not required to search for evidence. The remedy (continuation and order for revised briefing) is a standard and appropriate exercise of the court's case management powers to ensure a fair adjudication of the summary judgment motion. The order does not decide the merits of the motion but addresses the procedural posture.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 WILLIAM LESSIN, CAROL Case No.: 19-cv-01082-AJB-AHG SMALLEY, et al., on behalf of 12 themselves and others similarly ORDER CONTINUING HEARING 13 situated, AND COMPELLING Plaintiffs, SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING ON 14 PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO v. 15 MOTION FOR SUMMARY FORD MOTOR COMPANY, a Delaware JUDGMENT 16 corporation; and Does 1 through 10, 17 inclusive, Defendants. 18 19 Before the Court is Defendant Ford Motor Co.’s Motion for Partial Summary 20 Judgment. (Doc. No. 122.) Plaintiffs filed an opposition to the motion, (Doc. No. 141), to 21 which Ford replied, (Doc. No. 154). The hearing is currently set for August 15, 2024 at 22 2:00 p.m. For the reasons set forth below, the Court finds supplemental briefing is required 23 to fairly adjudicate Ford’s pending motion. Accordingly, the Hearing on Motion for 24 Summary Judgment, (Doc. No. 122), Motion for Class Certification, (Doc. No. 120), and 25 the Motions to Exclude Expert Opinions, (Doc. Nos. 137, 139, 150, 151, and 152), is 26 CONTINUED to Thursday, November 7, 2024 at 2:00 p.m. 27 /// 28 l The Court finds Plaintiffs have inadequately met their burden in opposing Ford’s 2 || motion for partial summary judgment. Plaintiffs assert the details of the alleged Suspension 3 ||Defect are “described in detail in Plaintiffs’ pending class certification motion” and 4 || thereafter fail to support many of their assertions with any citation to the evidentiary record. 5 ||Moreover, several of the citations that Plaintiffs do offer span multiple exhibits without 6 || directing the Court to the specific pages they rely upon. Indeed, it bears repeating the 7 ||familiar maxim: “judges are not like pigs, hunting for truffles buried in briefs.” /ndep. 8 || Towers of Wash. v. Washington, 350 F.3d 925, 929 (9th Cir. 2003). “Nor are they 9 archaeologists searching for treasure. Put simply, the Court is not obligated to paw over 10 || files in order to make a party’s claim.” Krause v. Nev. Mut. Ins. Co., No. 2:12-CV-00342- 11 |] JCM, 2014 WL 99178, at *2 (D. Nev. Jan. 3, 2014). 12 Thus, the Court finds supplemental briefing is necessary to fairly adjudicate this 13 |/motion. Accordingly, the Court ORDERS Plaintiffs to file a revised opposition brief 14 || setting forth specific exhibits, with citations to specific pages, that support their position 15 |/no later than August 23, 2024. Further failure may result in granting of the motion for 16 |}summary judgment. 17 Ford is further afforded an opportunity to revise its reply brief, and the Court 18 ||} ORDERS the reply brief be filed no later than August 30, 2024. 19 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. 21 ||Dated: August 8, 2024 © 22 Hon, Anthony J.Battaglia 23 United States District Judge 24 25 26 27 28