Noemi Garibaldi v. Compass Group USA Inc et al

Filing 16

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE by Judge Dale S. Fischer. Show Cause Hearing set for 4/22/2013 11:00 AM before Judge Dale S. Fischer. Response to Order to Show Cause due by 4/15/2013. The hearings originally scheduled have been rescheduled: Scheduling Conference set for 4/22/2013 11:00 AM before Judge Dale S. Fischer. (rne)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
MEMORANDUM

Case No.
Title

Date

CV 13-11 DSF (AGRx)

4/4/13

Noemi Garibaldi, et al. v. Compass Group USA, Inc., et al.

Present: The
Honorable

DALE S. FISCHER, United States District Judge

Debra Plato
Deputy Clerk

Not Present
Court Reporter

Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs:

Attorneys Present for Defendants:

Not Present

Not Present

Proceedings:

(In Chambers) Order to Show Cause Why the Court Should Not
Strike the Class Allegations; Order to Show Cause Why the Action
Should Not be Dismissed and Why Counsel Should Not be
Sanctioned for Failure to Follow This Court’s Orders; Order to
Show Cause Why Matthew J. Matern Would be Adequate Class
Counsel; Order Vacating Scheduling Conference Date

Plaintiff is ordered to show cause why the class allegations should not be stricken
for failure to comply with Local Rule 23-3, which requires that a motion for class
certification be filed within 90 days after service of a pleading purporting to commence a
class action. Even assuming, arguendo, that the 90-day period begins to run on the date
of removal to this Court, that time period has expired. Plaintiff’s response is due no later
than April 15, 2013.
On January 7, 2013, this Court issued its Order Setting Scheduling Conference.
Pursuant to the Order, and to Rules 16 and 26(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,
and Local Rules 16 and 26, the scheduling conference was set for April 8, 2013, at 11:00
a.m. and counsel were to confer and to file with the Court, no later than seven days before
the scheduling conference, a Joint Rule 26(f) Report. The parties have failed to comply
with the Order, which specifically requires that the parties agree to dates as set forth in
Exhibit A. The date previously set for the Scheduling Conference is vacated. Plaintiff is
ordered to show cause in writing no later than April 15, 2013 why this action should not
be dismissed, and both counsel are ordered to show cause why sanctions should not be
imposed pursuant to Local Rule 83-7.
CV-90 (12/02)

MEMORANDUM

Page 1 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
MEMORANDUM
The filing of a Joint Rule 26(f) Report by April 15, shall be deemed a sufficient
response to this Order to Show Cause. If a timely Report containing a properly
completed Exhibit A is filed, a scheduling conference will be held on April 22, 2013 at
11:00 a.m. in lieu of the hearing on the Order to Show Cause re Sanctions. If no
response is filed, this action will be dismissed.
Although adequacy of counsel is ordinarily determined after class certification, it
appears an early preliminary determination of whether Plaintiff’s counsel would be
adequate class counsel would serve the interests of the putative class and of judicial
economy. Therefore, Plaintiff’s counsel is ordered to show cause why he would be
adequate counsel to represent the class if a class were certified. In appointing class
counsel, the Court:
(A) must consider:
(I) the work counsel has done in identifying or investigating potential
claims in the action;
(ii) counsel’s experience in handling class actions, other complex
litigation, and the types of claims asserted in the action;
(iii) counsel’s knowledge of the applicable law; and
(iv) the resources that counsel will commit to representing the class;
(B) may consider any other matter pertinent to counsel’s ability to fairly and
adequately represent the interests of the class;
(C) may order potential class counsel to provide information on any subject
pertinent to the appointment and to propose terms for attorney’s fees and
nontaxable costs.
Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(g)(1).
A written response must be submitted no later than April 15, 2013. The response
should provide full and complete information responsive to Rule 23(g)(1)(A) and (B),
and sufficient for the Court to make an informed decision. The response should also
provide any agreement between Plaintiff and counsel (which may be filed in camera and
under seal), any agreement relating to this action with any other person or entity, and
counsel’s proposal for terms for attorney’s fees and nontaxable costs. See Rule
23(g)(1)(C).
A hearing on these Orders to Show Cause will be held on April 22, 2013 at 11:00
a.m.
Counsel are reminded that paper Chambers copies must be delivered pursuant to
this Court’s General Orders and the Local Rules. Counsel are further reminded to review
CV-90 (12/02)

MEMORANDUM

Page 2 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
MEMORANDUM
carefully the General Orders and Local Rules for this district and all of this Court’s
standing orders.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

CV-90 (12/02)

MEMORANDUM

Page 3 of 3