Michelle Marinus et al v. Altria Group Distribution Company
Filing
65
ORDER Denying Motion Relieving Plaintiffs of L.R. 23-3 Requirements Re: Time Limit for Filing Class Certification Motion #54 by Judge Otis D Wright II. For the reasons stated above, Plaintiffs Motion is DENIED. Plaintiffs may file a class-certification motion no later than June 6, 2012. (See Order for Details). (sch)
<![CDATA[
O
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
12
13
14
15
MICHELLE MARINUS, et al.,
v.
Plaintiffs,
ALTRIA SALES & DISTRIBUTION,
INC.,
Case No. 2:12-cv-01956-ODW(MANx)
ORDER DENYING MOTION
RELIEVING PLAINTIFFS OF L.R.
23-3 REQUIREMENTS RE: TIME
LIMIT FOR FILING CLASS
CERTIFICATION MOTION [54]
Defendant.
16
17
Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Motion to be relieved of Local Rule 23-3’s 90-
18
day deadline to file a class certification motion. (ECF No. 54.) Having carefully
19
considered the papers filed in support of and in opposition to the instant Motion, the
20
Court deems the matter appropriate for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.
21
Civ. P. 78; C. D. Cal. L. R. 7-15. Because a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f)
22
report was filed on January 11, 2012 (ECF No. 23), and discovery has commenced in
23
this action, the Court finds insufficient cause to relieve Plaintiffs completely of Local
24
Rule 23-3’s 90-day requirement. Plaintiffs’ Motion is therefore DENIED.
25
In light of the procedural history of this case, the Court deems it appropriate to
26
apply Local Rule 23-3’s 90-day deadline to the date this Court received the case from
27
the Northern District of California—March 8, 2012. Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ deadline
28
to file a class certification motion is hereby set for June 6, 2012. In setting this
1
deadline, the Court is court has specifically considered and rejected Plaintiffs’
2
argument in her Reply that “there is little doubt but that the filing date for
3
PLAINTIFFS’ motion for class certification would have been set [by the Northern
4
District of California] in October 2012 or later.” The Court finds it doubtful that the
5
Northern District would have deemed a date more than a year after Plaintiffs’
6
complaint was filed the sort of “early practicable time” Rule 23(c)(1)(A) contemplates
7
for filing a class-certification motion absent an applicable local rule.
8
The Court also specifically rejects Plaintiffs’ contention that application of
9
Local Rule 23-3’s 90-day class certification deadline—even applied to the date this
10
Court received this action—would cause Plaintiffs prejudice. (See Reply 4.) Any
11
such prejudice would be of Plaintiffs’ own making.
12
“[p]resumably, as required by Rule 11, plaintiffs’ counsel conducted a thorough and
13
good faith investigation into this matter before it was filed in September 2011, and
14
thus plaintiffs’ counsel has been preparing to move for class certification for over
15
seven months.” (Opp’n Ex. E, at 1.) In addition, Rule 26(d)(1) provides that
16
discovery may not commence “before the parties have conferred as required by Rule
17
26(f)” (emphasis added).
18
January 11, 2012, which necessarily means that the parties conferred pursuant to
19
Rule 26(f) by January 11, 2012, at the latest. (ECF No. 23.) Thus, although no
20
scheduling conference has been held in this action to date, Plaintiffs could have
21
commenced discovery as early as January 11, 2012. The fact that Plaintiffs chose not
22
to avail themselves of the preceding four-month opportunity to conduct discovery
23
does not establish good cause for the Court to depart from Local Rule 23-3’s 90-day
24
filing deadline.
25
///
26
///
27
///
28
///
As Defendant notes,
The parties submitted a Joint Rule 26(f) Report on
2
1
2
For the reasons stated above, Plaintiffs’ Motion is DENIED. Plaintiffs may file
a class-certification motion no later than June 6, 2012.
3
4
IT IS SO ORDERED.
5
6
May 1, 2012
7
8
9
____________________________________
HON. OTIS D. WRIGHT, II
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
]]>
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?
