Order | Filed: July 28, 2026
| Entered: July 28, 2026
Pacific Pile & Marine LP v. Skanska USA Civil West California District Inc
Contract: Other | Washington Western
2 - Minute Order ~Util - Terminate Motions ~Util - Set Motion and R&R Deadlines/Hearings
MINUTE ORDER made by direction of the Court, the Honorable Thomas S. Zilly, United States District Judge:
(1) Plaintiff's first reply, docket no. 32 , relating to its motion for partial summary judgment, is TREATED as a motion to strike defendant's response to plaintiff's dispositive motion, and it is DENIED. Defendant's response, docket no. 33 , is DEEMED timely filed and will be considered. Plaintiff's motion, docket no. 36 , to withdraw its initial reply (a/k/a motion to strike) is STRICKEN as moot. To the extent defendant's response, docket no. 38 , to plaintiff's motion to withdraw suggests that plaintiff's second reply in support of its motion for partial summary judgment should be disregarded as duplicative or otherwise improper, the argument is REJECTED, and plaintiff's second reply, docket no. 37 , will be considered in connection with plaintiff's dispositive motion. In the future, counsel shall meet and confer before filing materials that accuse the opposing attorney or party of delinquency in motion practice or related briefing, and they shall work more cooperatively to correct any clerical or administrative errors in filing.
(2) Having reviewed the parties' briefs, docket nos. 22 , 23 , and 29 , the Court CONCLUDES that King County Superior Court Judge Nicholas B. Straley's orders (i) granting summary judgment on liability in favor of plaintiff as to its breach-of-contract claim, and (ii) dismissing plaintiff's alternative claims for promissory estoppel, quantum meruit, and unjust enrichment, docket no. 3 -4 at 1-3 & 2730, do not constitute the "law of the case," and the Court is not bound by Judge Straley's orders. Given the absence of any analysis in Judge Straley's orders, the Court is reluctant to adopt them without a de novo examination of the parties contentions, cited authorities, and proffered evidence. The Court makes no ruling at this time concerning whether or not it will reach the same or similar results as Judge Straley.
(3) Oral argument on the cross-motions for summary judgment that were presented to Judge Straley, docket no. 3 -1 at 5667 & 7285, defendant's motion for reconsideration, which was also presented to Judge Straley, docket no. 3 -4 at 610, and plaintiff's pending motion for partial summary judgment, docket no. 15 , is hereby SET for September 2, 2026, at 10:00 a.m. The Court will issue an agenda a few days before the hearing.
(CJS)