Claudia Johnson v. Wells Fargo Dealer Services, Inc.
Filing
30
MINUTES OF IN CHAMBERS - ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE by Judge Percy Anderson: Plaintiff was to file her class certification motion by 8/9/2011. The Court hereby orders Plaintiff to show cause in writing why it should not strike the class allegations from her Complaint for failure to comply with Local Rule 23-3. Plaintiff is ordered to respond to this Order to Show Cause by 9/19/2011. The Scheduling Conference on this matter is continued to 9/26/2011 10:30 AM before Judge Percy Anderson. Court Reporter: None. (gk)
<![CDATA[
SEND
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.
CV 11-03590 PA (JCx)
Title
Claudia Johnson et al. v. Wells Fargo Dealer Services, Inc.
Present: The Honorable
Date
September12, 2011
PERCY ANDERSON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Paul Songco
None
N/A
Deputy Clerk
Court Reporter
Tape No.
Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs:
Attorneys Present for Defendants:
None
None
Proceedings:
IN CHAMBERS—ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
Before the Court is the parties’ Joint Scheduling Conference Report and Proposed Discovery Plan,
and Stipulation for Protective Order (“26(f) Report”) (Docket No. 29). Plaintiff Claudia Johnson has
brought a Class Action Complaint for damages and injunctive relief pursuant to the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act, 42 U.S.C. § 227 et seq., against Defendant Wells Fargo Dealer Services, Inc. The 26(f)
Report was filed on August 27, 2011, and purports to designate March 12, 2012, as the final date for the
filing of a class certification motion.
Local Rule 23-3 provides that “[w]ithin 90 days after service of a pleading purporting to
commence a class action other than an action subject to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of
1995 . . . the proponent of the class shall file a motion for certification that the action is maintainable as a
class action, unless otherwise ordered by the Court.” “‘Local rules are ‘laws of the United States,’’ and
“valid if . . . ‘not inconsistent’ with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.’’” United States v.
Comprehensive Drug Testing, Inc., 473 F.3d 915, 927 (9th Cir. 2006) (internal quotations omitted)
(quoting Marshall v. Gates, 44 F.3d 722, 724 (9th Cir. 1995) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 83).
The date for filing such a motion has come and gone. Specifically, pursuant to the Court’s order of
May 20, 2011, which granted Plaintiff an extension of time to file her class certification motion, Plaintiff
was to do so by August 9, 2011. The Court hereby orders Plaintiff to show cause in writing why it should
not strike the class allegations from her Complaint for failure to comply with Local Rule 23-3. Plaintiff is
ordered to respond to this Order to Show Cause by September 19, 2011. The Scheduling Conference on
this matter, previously scheduled for September 12, 2011, is continued to September 26, 2011, at 10:30
a.m.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
CV-90 (06/04)
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Page 1 of 1
]]>
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?
