Cabell v. Zorro Productions, Inc., 5:15-cv-00771-EJD. (2017)
Court: District Court, N.D. California
Number: infdco20171229765
Visitors: 13
Filed: Dec. 28, 2017
Latest Update: Dec. 28, 2017
Summary: ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO SEVER DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT Re: Dkt. No. 203 EDWARD J. DAVILA , District Judge . Presently before the Court is Plaintiff Robert Cabell's ("Plaintiff") Administrative Motion to Sever Defendants' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment as to Claim 1 for Copyright Infringement. Dkt. No. 203. Plaintiff argues that Defendants' motion should be severed because it seeks summary judgment on Counts 1 and 2 of the Second Amende
Summary: ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO SEVER DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT Re: Dkt. No. 203 EDWARD J. DAVILA , District Judge . Presently before the Court is Plaintiff Robert Cabell's ("Plaintiff") Administrative Motion to Sever Defendants' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment as to Claim 1 for Copyright Infringement. Dkt. No. 203. Plaintiff argues that Defendants' motion should be severed because it seeks summary judgment on Counts 1 and 2 of the Second Amended..
More
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO SEVER DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Re: Dkt. No. 203
EDWARD J. DAVILA, District Judge.
Presently before the Court is Plaintiff Robert Cabell's ("Plaintiff") Administrative Motion to Sever Defendants' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment as to Claim 1 for Copyright Infringement. Dkt. No. 203. Plaintiff argues that Defendants' motion should be severed because it seeks summary judgment on Counts 1 and 2 of the Second Amended Complaint ("SAC"), whereas Plaintiff's own motion for summary judgment—which was filed first—only seeks summary judgment on Count 2. Id. As such, Plaintiff argues, Defendants' motion is not a proper cross-motion and severance is warranted. Id.
The Court disagrees. Nothing in the Court's Standing Order or the case management orders issued in this case require that Defendants' cross-motion be limited to only the claims for which Plaintiff seeks summary judgment. As such, there is no good cause to sever. Further, by combining their opposition to Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and its own cross-motion for summary judgment in a single 25-page filing, Defendants appear to have complied with the Court's orders. It is now Plaintiff's turn to do the same. Plaintiff's administrative motion is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
