Victoria Cabrera v. Healthcare Services Group, Inc. et al

Filing 24

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE CLASS CERTIFICATION FILING DEADLINE 23 by Judge Otis D. Wright, II . (lc) Modified on 9/24/2013 .(lc).

O

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12
13
14

VICTORIA CABRERA, individually and
on behalf of herself and others similarly
situated,
v.

Plaintiff,

15

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S EX
PARTE APPLICATION TO
CONTINUE CLASS CERTIFICATION
FILING DEADLINE [23]

HEALTHCARE SERVICES GROUP,
INC., and DOES 1–100, inclusive

16

Case No. 2:13-cv-04695-ODW (Ex)

Defendants.

17
18

On August 26, 2013, the Court denied the parties’ Joint Stipulation to continue

19

the deadline for filing the class-certification motion. (ECF No. 22.) On September

20

24, 2013, Cabrera filed an Ex Parte Application to continue the filing deadline from

21

September 26, 2013, to October 28, 2013. (ECF No. 23.) Defendant does not oppose

22

this continuance. (Id.)

23

Cabrera contends that there is good cause to extend the 90-day

24

certification-filing deadline because Cabrera “did not conduct discovery for the period

25

between June 27, 2013 and August 12, 2013 . . . while efforts were made to avoid

26

duplicative discovery and coordinate with counsel in a second case involving identical

27

claims.” (Ex Parte Appl. ¶ 2.) Cabrera further asserts that Healthcare Services

28

Group’s failure to provide some necessary information in its responses to special

1

interrogatories and document requests and its inability to produce a Rule 30(b)(6)

2

witness prior to the September 26, 2013 deadline serve as additional good cause for a

3

continuance. (Id. at ¶¶ 5–6.) The Court disagrees.

4

Nowhere in Cabrera’s Ex Parte Application does she indicate why this

5

discovery is so pivotal to her claim or how it is likely to produce information

6

substantiating her motion for class certification. Absent persuasive evidence that the

7

propriety of maintaining this case as a class action cannot be determined without the

8

specific discovery she seeks, the Court is not willing to disregard this Court’s Local

9

Rules. See Vinole v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 571 F.3d 935, 942 (9th Cir.

10

2009) (a party seeking class certification is not always entitled to certification

11

discovery, but where the propriety of a class action cannot easily be determined

12

without discovery “the better and more advisable practice for a District Court to

13

follow is to afford the litigants an opportunity to present evidence as to whether a

14

class action was maintainable.”)

15

Cabrera also makes much of the fact that Defendant Healthcare Services Group

16

previously stipulated to a 30-day continuance and will not oppose the continuance

17

sought in her ex parte request. (Ex Parte Appl. 1, 3.) But even if Healthcare Services

18

Group will not be prejudiced by the delay, “the public business of the court . . . has

19

been hampered and delayed.” Walker v. Columbia Univ., 62 F.R.D. 63, 64

20

(S.D.N.Y.1973) (denying class certification even where defendants were not

21

prejudiced because motion to certify class was untimely).

22

While Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 does not include a time period, Local

23

Rule 23-3 provides, “Within 90 days after service of a pleading purporting to

24

commence a class action . . . the proponent of the class shall file a motion for

25

certification that the action is maintainable as a class action, unless otherwise ordered

26

by the Court.” The plain language of Local Rule is clear and unambiguous. To

27

permit extension of the ninety day deadline would frustrate the purpose of Federal

28

///

2

1

Rule of Civil Procedure 23(c)(1)(A), which requires the court to determine at “an

2

early practicable time . . . whether to certify the action as a class action.”

3

The demand for a timely motion for class certification is premised on sound

4

practical considerations.

A representative plaintiff’s delay in filing for class

5

certification impedes the court’s consideration of the issue and—more importantly—

6

can prejudice the rights of the class members. Indeed, “pertinent statutes of limitation

7

may be running and important interests may be exposed to injury or destruction.”

8

Jones v. Hartford Ins. Co. of Midwest, 243 F.R.D. 694, 695 (N.D. Fla. 2006). While

9

the determination of class certification is delayed, members of a putative class “may

10

be led by the very existence of the lawsuit to neglect their rights until after a negative

11

ruling on this question—by which time it may be too late for the filing of independent

12

actions.” (Id.) Of course, these harms are not a concern if the action is ultimately

13

determined to be properly maintainable as a class action. But that can be known only

14

after the class-certification motion is filed.

15

Permitting Cabrera to extend the certification filing deadline while she awaits

16

discovery responses would subvert the interests of diligence required by Federal Rule

17

of Civil Procedure 23(c)(1)(A). Local Rule 23-3 was written to further the interests of

18

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(c)(1)(A)—and the Court will not craft unnecessary

19

exceptions to hamper them.

20

Additionally, if Cabrera cannot timely file her motion for class certification,

21

then it raises questions as to whether she can adequately protect the interests of the

22

class as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a)(4). An inability to timely

23

move for class certification reflects a “failure to protect the interests of class

24

members” and “surely bears strongly on the adequacy of the representation that those

25

class members might expect to receive.”

26

Rodriguez, 431 U.S. 395, 405, (1977); see also Williams v. S. Bell Tel. and Tel. Co.,

27

Case No. No. 77-1895-CIV-WMH, 1978 WL 73, at *2 (1978) (failure of plaintiff to

28

properly and timely move for class determination “raises serious questions as to

3

E. Tex. Motor Freight Sys., Inc. v.

1

whether [s]he will fairly and adequately represent the class and protect their

2

interests”); Jones, 243 F.R.D. at 695.

3

This Court will strictly adhere to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure as well as

4

the Local Rules in order to prevent delay and reduce the possibility of abuse in class

5

actions. Thus, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs’ Ex Parte Application to continue the

6

class certification filing deadline. (ECF No. 23.)

7
8

IT IS SO ORDERED.

9
10

September 24, 2013

11
12
13

____________________________________
OTIS D. WRIGHT, II
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

4