Daisy Vasquez et al v. TWC Administration LLC et al

Filing 48

MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS): ORDER DEFENDANTS MOTION TO BIFURCATEAND STAY CLASS DISCOVERY (Dkt. No. 28, filed March 30,2015) 28 by Judge Christina A. Snyder: The Court finds this motion appropriate for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. Civ. P . 78; C.D. Cal. Local Rule 7-15. Accordingly, the hearing date of April 27, 2015, is vacated, and the matter is hereby taken under submission. Having considered the parties arguments, the Court DENIES the instant motion, declining to bifurcate any proceedings at this time or to stay class discovery and related motion practice. (pj)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.

2:14-cv-07621-CAS(FFMx)

Title

DAISY VASQUEZ, ET AL. v. TWC ADMINISTRATION LLC, ET AL.

Present: The Honorable

Date

‘O’

April 17, 2015

CHRISTINA A. SNYDER

Catherine Jeang
Deputy Clerk

Not Present
Court Reporter / Recorder

N/A
Tape No.

Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs:

Attorneys Present for Defendants:

Not Present

Not Present

Proceedings:

(In Chambers) DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO BIFURCATE
AND STAY CLASS DISCOVERY (Dkt. No. 28, filed March 30,
2015)

The Court finds this motion appropriate for decision without oral argument. See
Fed. R. Civ. P. 78; C.D. Cal. Local Rule 7-15. Accordingly, the hearing date of April 27,
2015, is vacated, and the matter is hereby taken under submission.
The Court is in receipt of defendants’ motion to bifurcate pretrial proceedings into
individual liability and class phases, and stay class discovery pending the Court’s
decision on summary judgment. Dkt. No. 28. Plaintiffs opposed the motion on April 6,
2015, and defendants filed a reply on April 13, 2015. Dkt. Nos. 35, 44. Subsequent to
the filing of the motion to bifurcate and stay, defendants filed a motion for summary
judgment, which is set for hearing on May 4, 2015. Dkt. No. 36. Additionally, the Court
recently approved a stipulation enlarging the deadline for plaintiffs to file a motion for
class certification to June 8, 2015. Dkt. No. 47.
Having considered the parties’ arguments, the Court DENIES the instant motion,
declining to bifurcate any proceedings at this time or to stay class discovery and related
motion practice.
The Court also denies plaintiffs’ request, raised in opposition to the instant motion,
to hold defendants’ pending motion for summary judgment in abeyance until the Court
hears plaintiffs’ yet-to-be-filed motion for class certification. See Wright v. Schock, 742
F.2d 541, 544 (9th Cir. 1984) (“Where the defendant assumes the risk that summary
judgment in his favor will have only stare decisis effect on the members of the putative
class, it is within the discretion of the district court to rule on the summary judgment
CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Date

‘O’

Case No.

2:14-cv-07621-CAS(FFMx)

April 17, 2015

Title

DAISY VASQUEZ, ET AL. v. TWC ADMINISTRATION LLC, ET AL.

motion first.”). Finally, the Court also rejects as premature plaintiffs’ request that the
Court issue an order ruling that defendants are “waiving the protections of one-way
intervention” by filing a motion for summary judgment before plaintiffs’ motion for class
certification.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
00
Initials of Preparer

CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

:

00

CMJ

Page 2 of 2