Amy Friedman v. Guthy-Renker LLC

Filing 47

ORDER ESTABLISHING CLASS CERTIFICATION DEADLINE by Judge Otis D. Wright, II: The Court hereby rejects the proposed timeline in the Joint Stipulation. (ECF No. 46.) The deadline to file a class certification is Wednesday, June 17, 2015. (lc). Modified on 3/17/2015 (lc).

O

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

United States District Court
Central District of California

8
9
10
11

AMY FRIEDMAN and JUDI MILLER,

12

on behalf of themselves and all others

13

similarly situated,

Case No. 2:14-cv-06009-ODW(AGRx)

Plaintiffs,

14
15
16
17

ORDER ESTABLISHING CLASS
CERTIFICATION DEADLINE

v.
GUTHY-RENKER LLC,
Defendant.

18

The original putative class action Complaint in this matter was filed on July 31,

19

2014. (ECF No. 1.) On October 16, the parties stipulated to an extension of time to

20

file the First Amended Complaint and an extension to file a class certification motion,

21

with the suggestion that a new timeline would be submitted to the Court once it ruled

22

on Guthy-Renker’s imminent Motion to Dismiss. (ECF No. 31.) On October 17,

23

2014, the Court granted the joint stipulation and instructed the parties to submit a

24

proposed schedule regarding the motion for class certification within ten days of the

25

Court’s ruling on the Motion to Dismiss. (ECF No. 32.) In granting the joint

26

stipulation, the Court waived the requirements of Local Rule 23-3 which requires the

27

proponent of the class to file a motion for certification “[w]ithin ninety days after

28

service of a pleading purporting to commence a class action.”

L.R. 23-3.

On

1

December 10, 2014, Defendant Guthy-Renker LLC filed its Motion to Dismiss the

2

First Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 36.)

3

On February 27, 2015, the Court granted in part and denied in part Guthy-

4

Renker’s Motion to Dismiss. (ECF No. 41.) On March 13, 2015, the parties filed the

5

pending Joint Stipulation regarding the class certification deadlines, in compliance

6

with the Court’s October 17, 2014 Order. (ECF No. 46.) In the Joint Stipulation, the

7

parties request a bifurcation of class certification and the merits, and propose a

8

December 18, 2015 deadline for Plaintiffs to file their motion for class certification.

9

(Id.)

10

The Court rejects both proposals.

First, the proposed class certification

11

deadline is arbitrary and excessive. Had the Court not waived the requirements of

12

Local Rule 23-3, the original class certification deadline would have been October 31,

13

2014. The parties are now requesting a date thirteen and a half months after the

14

original deadline, and a year and a half after the original Complaint was filed. The

15

Joint Stipulation offers no justification for such a delay and without one the Court sees

16

no reason for such a dramatic departure from the regular Central District requirements

17

regarding class certification. Parties bringing class action lawsuits in this District are

18

on notice that the Local Rules regarding class certification motions are more stringent

19

than the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(1)(A). There is

20

simply no excuse to not be prepared. This is especially true for these litigants, who

21

have been in court for nearly eight months already. In the interest of fairness, the

22

Court will re-start the Local Rule 23-3 clock as of today. The class certification

23

motion and all subsequent briefing shall be in compliance with the Local Rules.

24

Second, the Court sees no need to bifurcate the discovery in this matter. Class

25

certification is proper only if “the trial court is satisfied, after a rigorous analysis, that

26

the prerequisites of Rule 23(a) have been satisfied.” Gen Tel. Co of Sw. v. Falcon,

27

457 U.S. 147, 161 (1982). “Frequently that ‘rigorous analysis’ will entail some

28

overlap with the merits of the plaintiff’s underlying claim. That cannot be helped.”

2

1

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 131 S. Ct. 2541, 2551 (2011). Because the discovery

2

required for class certification and the merits will overlap, the Court sees no need to

3

unnecessarily delay the litigation through bifurcation. The parties can suggest an

4

appropriate case management schedule in their Joint Rule 26(f) Report.

5

Accordingly, the Court hereby rejects the proposed timeline in the Joint

6

Stipulation. (ECF No. 46.) The deadline to file a class certification is Wednesday,

7

June 17, 2015.

8

IT IS SO ORDERED.

9
10

March 17, 2015

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

3