-BAM Gonzales et al v. Comcast Corporation, No. 1:2010cv01010 - Document 88 (E.D. Cal. 2012)

Court Description: ORDER Adopting 86 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS; DENYING Plaintiff's 64 Motion for Class Certification signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 1/23/2012. (Sant Agata, S)

Download PDF
-BAM Gonzales et al v. Comcast Corporation Doc. 88 1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 10 11 12 13 ALFRED GONZALES AND KELLY GONZALES, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, CASE NO. 1: 10-cv-01010-LJO-BAM ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS; DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION v. COMCAST CORPORATION, and DOES 1 through 10 Inclusive, 14 Defendants. 15 / 16 By notice filed on August 22, 2011, plaintiffs Alfred Gonzales and Kelly Gonzales 17 (“Plaintiffs”) filed a motion to certify two putative classes in this matter. (Doc. 64.) Defendant 18 Comcast Corporation. (“Comcast”) filed an opposition on September 26, 2011. (Doc. 75.) 19 Plaintiffs filed their Reply Brief on October 14, 2011. (Doc. 78.) The matter was referred to United 20 States Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 21 302. The Court heard oral arguments on the matter on November 18, 2011.1 22 On January 3, 2012, United States Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe issued Findings 23 and Recommendations recommending Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification be denied. (Doc. 86.) 24 The January 3, 2012 findings and Recommendations were served on the parties and contained notice 25 to the parties that any objections to the Findings and Recommendations were to be filed within 26 27 1 28 Counsel Kevin Ruf and Coby Turner appeared for Plaintiffs. Counsel Bryan Merryman and Jaime Bianchi appeared for Comcast. 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 fifteen days of service of the Order. (Doc. 86, 31: 19-22.) The parties have not filed timely 2 objections to the Findings and Recommendations. 3 In accordance with the provisions of Title 28 of the United States Code section 636(b)(1)(c), 4 this Court has conducted a de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the 5 Court finds that the Findings and Recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis. 6 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 7 1. The Findings and Recommendations, filed January 3, 2012, is adopted in full; 8 2. Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification is DENIED. 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. 10 Dated: 66h44d January 23, 2012 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.