The defendant sought to schedule a summary judgment motion in two related actions concerning failed pre-construction home purchases.
The plaintiffs opposed, arguing it would not be the most expeditious or efficient process.
The court, exercising its gatekeeping function under Rule 50.13(6), declined to schedule the summary judgment motion, finding that a one-day trial would be more efficient given the limited time savings and the potential for overlapping factual determinations with other pleaded issues (misrepresentation, undue influence, exemplary damages).
The court emphasized that partial summary judgment is only appropriate for discrete, severable issues.
A timetable for documentary production, discoveries, and mandatory mediation was ordered.