Lisa Mollicone v. Universal Handicraft, Inc. et al
Filing
39
MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) - PLAINTIFF LISA MOLLICONE'S EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE THE LOCAL RULE 23-3 DEADLINE FOR THE FILING OF A MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION by Judge Christina A. Snyder: On 1/11/2017, Plaintiff filed an Ex Parte Applicati on to continue the deadline to file a motion for class certification 34 . It appears that defendants do not oppose a continuance of the deadline to 3/20/2017. Therefore, the Court continues the deadline for filing a motion for class certification to 3/20/2017, without prejudice to plaintiff's seeking a further continuance upon a showing of good cause. Court Reporter: Not Present. (gk)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case No.
Title
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
‘O’
2:16-cv-07322-CAS(MRWx)
Date January 25, 2017
LISA MOLLICONE v. UNIVERSAL HANDICRAFT, INC. ET AL.
Present: The Honorable
Catherine Jeang
Deputy Clerk
CHRISTINA A. SNYDER
N/A
Tape No.
Attorneys Present for Defendants:
Not Present
Court Reporter / Recorder
Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs:
Not Present
Not Present
(IN CHAMBERS) - PLAINTIFF LISA MOLLICONE’S EX
Proceedings:
PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE THE LOCAL RULE 23-3
DEADLINE FOR THE FILING OF A MOTION FOR CLASS
CERTIFICATION (Dkt. 34, filed January 11, 2017)
On September 29, 2016, plaintiff Lisa Mollicone filed a class action complaint
against Defendants Shay Sabag Segev and Universal Handicraft, Inc. (“UHI”), doing
business as Deep Sea Cosmetics and Adore Organic Innovations. Dkt. 1 (“Complaint”).
On December 19, 2016, plaintiff filed a first amended complaint. Dkt. 25 (“FAC”).
On January 11, 2017, plaintiff filed an ex parte application to continue the deadline
to file a motion for class certification, which she asserts was set for January 13, 2017 –
ninety days after plaintiff served UHI with the Complaint. Dkt. 34; see C.D. Cal. L.R.
23-3. On January 12, defendants filed an opposition to plaintiff’s ex parte application,
arguing, inter alia, that the proper deadline for a motion for class certification is March
20, 2017 – ninety days after plaintiff filed her FAC. Dkt. 36.
Local Rule 23-3 provides:
Within 90 days after service of a pleading purporting to commence a class
action other than an action subject to the Private Securities Litigation
Reform Act of 1995, P.L. 104-67, 15 U.S.C. § 77z-1 et seq., the proponent
of the class shall file a motion for certification that the action is maintainable
as a class action, unless otherwise ordered by the Court.
C.D. Cal. L.R. 23-3 (emphasis added). Therefore, plaintiff is correct that her deadline to
file a motion for class certification was January 13, 2017. However, under Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 6(b)(1)(A), “the court may, for good cause, extend the time [within
which a motion must be filed] . . . if the request is made before the original time or its
CV-7322 (01/17)
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Page 1 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case No.
Title
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
‘O’
2:16-cv-07322-CAS(MRWx)
Date January 25, 2017
LISA MOLLICONE v. UNIVERSAL HANDICRAFT, INC. ET AL.
extension expires.” The Ninth Circuit has recently “note[d] that the schedule
contemplated by Central District of California Local Rule 23-3, when considered
alongside federal rules regarding status conferences and the timing of discovery, is quite
unrealistic in light of recent case law regarding the need to establish a sufficient factual
record at the class certification stage.” Balser v. Hain Celestial Grp., Inc., 640 F. App’x
694, 696 (9th Cir. 2016). Furthermore, it appears that defendants do not oppose a
continuance of the deadline to March 20, 2017. Therefore, the Court continues the
deadline for filing a motion for class certification to March 20, 2017, without prejudice to
plaintiff’s seeking a further continuance upon a showing of good cause.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
00
Initials of Preparer
CV-7322 (01/17)
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
:
00
CMJ
Page 2 of 2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?