Barbara Grady v. RCM Technologies, Inc.

Filing 38

MINUTE (IN CHAMBERS) Order to Show Cause Why the Stay Should Not Lift by Judge Josephine L. Staton: Plaintiff is ORDERED to show cause why the stay should not lift so that litigation may resume. Plaintiff shall file a response of no more than ten (10) pages within ten (10) days of the issuance of this Order. Plaintiffs response should include a jointly-prepared scheduling order for the Court to issue in the event the stay is lifted. (jp)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
Case No. 5:22-cv-00842-JLS-SHK
Title: Barbara Grady v. RCM Technologies, Inc.

Date: February 05, 2024

Present: Honorable JOSEPHINE L. STATON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Gabby Garcia
Deputy Clerk
Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs:
Not Present

N/A
Court Reporter
Attorneys Present for Defendant:
Not Present

PROCEEDINGS: (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THE
STAY SHOULD NOT LIFT
The Court is in receipt of the parties’ Joint Status Report. (Report, Doc. 37.) In
that Report, the parties represent that they “have engaged in good faith negotiations to
agree upon a process for surveying the approximately 1,414 identified settlement class
members to obtain additional information from them.” (Report at 1.) The parties have
now created a survey and propose to use a third-party administrator to aggregate the
results but data collection has not yet begun. (Id. at 2.) The parties propose that they will
provide a further status report to the Court in 60 days to propose a schedule for a renewed
motion for preliminary approval or for otherwise litigating the case. (Id. at 3.)
The parties’ proposal is DENIED. At the hearing regarding the Renewed Motion
for Preliminary Approval of Class Action and PAGA Settlement, the Court gave the
parties 120 days to file a Second Renewed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class
Action and PAGA Settlement. (See Minute Order, Doc. 34.) In apparent disregard of
that order, the parties have waited over 150 days and, rather than filing a Renewed
Motion, have indicated that they have not yet begun collecting evidence in support of that
Renewed Motion.

______________________________________________________________________________
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
Case No. 5:22-cv-00842-JLS-SHK
Title: Barbara Grady v. RCM Technologies, Inc.

Date: February 05, 2024

As the Court stated when it denied the Renewed Motion, there were “red flags on
the issue of adequacy of representation.” (Order, Doc. 35 at 13.) The proposed survey
adds yet another red flag. In short, the fact that the parties are just now proposing a
survey instrument to collect information about the experience of class members tells the
Court that the parties are seeking post-hoc justification of their settlement agreement.
That is, the parties lacked the necessary information to craft this proposed class-wide
settlement at the time they negotiated it. This reinforces the Court’s concern that the
settlement was not the product of informed negotiations that represented the best interests
of class members.
The Court stayed this action on January 10, 2023 after the parties’ represented
they had reached a settlement. (See Order re Notice of Settlement, Doc. 24.) Now, based
on the failure to have that settlement preliminarily approved, Plaintiff is ORDERED to
show cause why the stay should not lift so that litigation may resume. Plaintiff shall file
a response of no more than ten (10) pages within ten (10) days of the issuance of this
Order. Plaintiff’s response should include a jointly-prepared scheduling order for the
Court to issue in the event the stay is lifted.

Initials of Deputy Clerk: gga

______________________________________________________________________________
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
2