Traci Wallerstein v. Dole Fresh Vegetables, Inc.

Filing 60

ORDER DENYING STIPULATION EXTENDING TIME FOR PLAINTIFF TO MOVE FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION 58 by Judge Otis D. Wright, II: Wallersteins Motion for Class Certification must be filed by December 30, 2013the Monday before theend of the 90-day deadline provided by Local Rule 23-3. (lc). Modified on 10/10/2013 .(lc).

O

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

TRACI WALLERSTEIN, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated,

12
13
14

v.

Plaintiff,

DOLE FRESH VEGETABLES, INC.

Case No. 2:13-cv-07271-ODW(VBKx)
ORDER DENYING STIPULATION
EXTENDING TIME FOR
PLAINTIFF TO MOVE FOR CLASS
CERTIFICATION [58]

Defendant.

15
16

On October 8, 2013, the parties filed a joint stipulation to continue the class

17
18

certification filing deadline.

(ECF No. 58.)

The parties request that the Court

19

continue the certification deadline to 90 days after the Court rules on Dole’s pending

20

motion to dismiss. Wallerstein further avers that she needs more time to conduct

21

class-certification discovery and prepare her motion
Wallerstein’s assertion that she needs more time to conduct class-certification

22
23

discovery does not amount to good cause for continuing the certification deadline.

24

District courts have broad discretion over the class-certification process, including

25

whether to permit certification-related discovery. Vinole v. Countrywide Home Loans,

26

Inc., 571 F.3d 935, 942 (9th Cir. 2009). A party is not entitled to certification

27

discovery, though the pleadings alone often do not suffice to resolve the certification

28

///

1

question. Id. When a district court sets a deadline, the party seeking to alter that date

2

must present good cause for the change. Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1).

3

Permitting Wallerstein to extend the certification filing deadline to conduct

4

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

5

Procedure 23(c)(1)(A). While Federal Rule 23 does not include a time period, Local

6

Rule 23-3 provides that within “90 days after service of a pleading purporting to

7

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

8

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

9

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

10

permit extension of the 90-day deadline would frustrate Rule 23(c)(1)(A)’s directive,

11

which requires the court to determine at “an early practicable time . . . whether to

12

certify the action as a class action.”

13

Additionally, the length of the parties’ requested continuance is unreasonable.

14

This action was transferred to this Court from the Northern District of California on

15

October 4, 2013. (ECF No. 55.) Accordingly, Wallerstein’s certification motion must

16

be filed by December 30, 2013. The hearing date for Dole’s Motion to Dismiss is

17

November 8, 2013. (ECF No. 43.) Thus, the requested 90-day extension would give

18

Wallerstein until February 8, 2014—at the earliest—to file her motion for class

19

certification. This extension is excessive. The November 8, 2013 hearing date still

20

affords Wallerstein 52 days—almost double a standard briefing period—to file her

21

certification motion. Thus, the added efficiency of postponing the class-certification

22

deadline to 90 days after the motion to dismiss is negligible at best. In sum, the

23

parties have not shown good cause to continue the certification deadline.

24

Sound practical considerations undergird the demand for a timely class-

25

certification motion. A representative plaintiff’s delay in filing for class certification

26

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

27

the rights of the class members. Indeed, “pertinent statutes of limitation may be

28

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

2

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

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

5

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

6

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

7

after the class-certification motion is filed.

8

For the reasons stated above, the Court DENIES the parties’ Stipulation

9

Extending Time for Plaintiff to Move for Class Certification. Wallerstein’s Motion

10

for Class Certification must be filed by December 30, 2013—the Monday before the

11

end of the 90-day deadline provided by Local Rule 23-3.

12
13

IT IS SO ORDERED.

14

October 9, 2013

15

____________________________________
OTIS D. WRIGHT, II
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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

3