Gonzales et al v. Comcast Corporation

Filing 88

ORDER Adopting 86 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS; DENYING Plaintiff's 64 Motion for Class Certification signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 1/23/2012. (Sant Agata, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
10
11
12
13

ALFRED GONZALES AND
KELLY GONZALES, Individually
and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated,
Plaintiffs,

CASE NO. 1: 10-cv-01010-LJO-BAM
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS; DENYING
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR CLASS
CERTIFICATION

v.
COMCAST CORPORATION, and
DOES 1 through 10 Inclusive,

14
Defendants.
15

/

16
By notice filed on August 22, 2011, plaintiffs Alfred Gonzales and Kelly Gonzales
17
(“Plaintiffs”) filed a motion to certify two putative classes in this matter. (Doc. 64.) Defendant
18
Comcast Corporation. (“Comcast”) filed an opposition on September 26, 2011.

(Doc. 75.)

19
Plaintiffs filed their Reply Brief on October 14, 2011. (Doc. 78.) The matter was referred to United
20
States Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule
21

302. The Court heard oral arguments on the matter on November 18, 2011.1

22
On January 3, 2012, United States Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe issued Findings
23
and Recommendations recommending Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification be denied. (Doc. 86.)
24
The January 3, 2012 findings and Recommendations were served on the parties and contained notice
25
to the parties that any objections to the Findings and Recommendations were to be filed within
26
27
1

28

Counsel Kevin Ruf and Coby Turner appeared for Plaintiffs. Counsel Bryan Merryman and Jaime Bianchi
appeared for Comcast.

1

1

fifteen days of service of the Order. (Doc. 86, 31: 19-22.) The parties have not filed timely

2

objections to the Findings and Recommendations.

3

In accordance with the provisions of Title 28 of the United States Code section 636(b)(1)(c),

4

this Court has conducted a de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the

5

Court finds that the Findings and Recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis.

6

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

7

1.

The Findings and Recommendations, filed January 3, 2012, is adopted in full;

8

2.

Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification is DENIED.

9

IT IS SO ORDERED.

10

Dated:
66h44d

January 23, 2012

/s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2