Clayton v. Knight Transportation, Inc.

Filing 11

ORDER RE CLASS CERTIFICATION MOTION - Discovery Deadlines - Initial Disclosure 8/1/2011; Non Expert 2/15/2012; Expert 1/5/2012; Class Certification Motion Deadline to file 3/30/2012; Hearing 5/15/2012; Scheduling Conference set for 6/19/2012 at 09:00 AM in Courtroom 9 (DLB) before Magistrate Judge Dennis L. Beck. Order signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis L. Beck on 7/14/2011. (Hernandez, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

DON CLAYTON

11
Plaintiff,
12
v.
13
14

KNIGHT TRANSPORTATION, INC.

15
Defendant.
16

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

1: 11 CV 00735 LJO DLB
SCHEDULING ORDER
RE: CLASS CERTIFICATION MOTION
Discovery Deadlines:
Initial Disclosures: August 1, 2011
Non Expert: February 15, 2012
Expert: January 5, 2012
Class Certification Motion Deadlines:
Filing: March 30, 2012
Hearing: May 15, 2012

17

Scheduling Conference:
June 19, 2012 at 9:00 a.m.
Courtroom 9

18
19
20

I.

21
22

Date of Scheduling Conference
July 14, 2001.

II.

Appearances of Counsel

23

Michael Malk and Craig Justin Ackerman appeared on behalf of Plaintiff.

24

Babak Yousefzadeh appeared on behalf of Defendant.

25
26
27
28

1

1

III.

2
3

Discovery Plan and Cut-Off Date - Re: Class Certification
The parties are ordered to exchange the initial disclosures required by Fed .R. Civ.

P. 26(a)(1) on or before August 1, 2011.

4

The parties are ordered to complete all discovery pertaining to non-experts on or

5

before February 15, 2012 and all discovery pertaining to experts on or before January 5, 2012.

6

The parties are directed to disclose all expert witnesses, in writing, on or before

7

December 1, 2001, and to disclose all supplemental experts on or before . The written

8

designation of retained and non-retained experts shall be made pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.

9

Rule 26(a)(2), (A), (B) and (C) and shall include all information required thereunder.

10

Failure to designate experts in compliance with this order may result in the Court excluding the

11

testimony or other evidence offered through such experts that are not disclosed pursuant to this

12

order.

13

The provisions of Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(4) and (5) shall apply to all discovery

14

relating to experts and their opinions. Experts must be fully prepared to be examined on all

15

subjects and opinions included in the designation. Failure to comply will result in the imposition

16

of sanctions, which may include striking the expert designation and preclusion of expert

17

testimony.

18
19
20
21

The provisions of Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(e) regarding a party's duty to timely
supplement disclosures and responses to discovery requests will be strictly enforced.
IV.

Pre-Trial Motion Schedule
Non-dispositive motions are heard on Fridays at 9:00 a.m., before the Honorable

22

Dennis L. Beck, United States Magistrate Judge in Courtroom 9. Counsel must comply with

23

Local Rule 251 with respect to discovery disputes or the motion will be denied without

24

prejudice and dropped from calendar.

25

Discovery Disputes

26

No written discovery motions shall be filed without the prior approval of the

27
28

2

1

Magistrate Judge. A party with a discovery dispute must first confer with the opposing party in a

2

good faith effort to resolve by agreement the issues in dispute. If that good faith effort is

3

unsuccessful, the moving party shall then seek a prompt conference with the Magistrate Judge by

4

telephone. The Clerk will inform counsel of the time and date of the telephone conference and it

5

shall be the responsibility of the moving party to initiate the telephone conference call to

6

chambers. The recording of telephone hearings or conferences with the Court is prohibited,

7

except with prior permission of the Court. The request for a conference with the Court carries

8

with it a professional representation by the lawyer that a conference has taken place and that he

9

or she has made a good faith effort to resolve the dispute.

10

In scheduling such motions, the Magistrate Judge may grant applications for an

11

order shortening time pursuant to Local Rule 144(e). However, if counsel does not obtain an

12

order shortening time, the notice of motion must comply with Local Rule 251.

13

Counsel may appear and argue non-dispositive motions by telephone, providing a

14

written request to so appear is made to the Magistrate Judge's Courtroom Clerk no later than five

15

(5) court days before the noticed hearing date. In the event that more than one attorney requests

16

to appear by telephone then it shall be the obligation of the moving part(ies) to arrange and

17

originate a conference call to the court.

18

Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification shall be filed no later than March 30,

19

2012 and heard no later than May 15, 2012, in Courtroom 4 before the Honorable Lawrence J.

20

O'Neill, United States District Court Judge.

21

V.

22
23
24
25
26

Scheduling Conference
A Scheduling Conference is scheduled for June 19, 2012 at 9:00 a.m. in

Courtroom 9 before the Honorable Dennis L. Beck, U.S. Magistrate Judge.
VI.

Related Matters Pending
There are currently two other class action lawsuits pending against Defendant

Knight Transportation, Inc., each of which overlaps with the instant case to some extent

27
28

3

1

regarding requested penalties, although Plaintiffs' theories is those cases regarding the triggering

2

event of those penalties is separate and distinct from the theories in the instant case .

3

Jack Morrison v. Knight Transportation, Inc. et al., is a class action lawsuit against

4

Defendant, filed on May 9, 2008, in the California Superior Court (County of Tulare), Case No.

5

228016. In the case, plaintiff Morrison (on behalf of himself and a class of "similarly situated"

6

individuals) alleges several wage-and-hour causes of action against Knight Transportation,

7

including: (1) Failure to Provide Mandated Timely Off-Duty Meal Periods per Cal. Labor

8

Code~§ 226.7 and 512, and IWC Wage Order No. 9); (2) Unfair/Unlawful/Fraudulent Business

9

Practices per Cal. Business and Professions Code § 17200; (3) Failure to Provide Accurate

10

Itemized Wage Statements per Cal. Labor Code §~226 and 226.3; and (4) Failure to Pay Wages

11

Due at Time of Termination per Cal. Labor Code§§ 201-203.

12

The Morrison class is defined as: current and tormer truck drivers who were based out of

13

Knight Transportation's Northern or Southern California distribution centers from May 8, 2008

14

to the present, and who drove routes of five hours (or more) within California without a 30

15

minute off-duty meal period. The thrust of plaintiff's claims in A1orri:wn is that Knight

16

Transportation did not provide its drivers meal periods as required by the Labor Code. The

17

remaining claims in that action are derivatives of the first. Two of those derivative claims are

18

failures to provide accurate wage statements (under Labor Code§§ 226 and 226.3) and failure

19

to pay final wages at termination (under Labor Code §§201-203) both of which have also been

20

pled against Defendant in the current litigation before this Court. Given the class definition in

21

Morrison will largely overlap with the class definition in the current litigation before this Court,

22

and thus there will be overlap as to these two derivative claims, although the derivative claims in

23

Morrision are based on a different theory (i.e., failure to provide meal breaks) than the derivative

24

claims in the instant case.

25

Procedurally, the parties in Morrison sought early mediation before Michael Loeb, which

26

mediation was unsuccessfuL Since then, class in Morrison has been certified, Defendant's motion

27
28

4

1

for summary judgment (based on preemption grounds) has been denied, and the matter is stayed

2

pending Brinker.

3

Steve Canwn et. a!. v. Knight Transportation, Inc., is another class action lawsuit against

4

Defendant, filed on August 28, 2009, in the California Superior Court (County of Tulare), Case

5

No. 09-234186. In the case, plaintiffs Carson and Amsworth (on behalf of themselves and a class

6

of "similarly situated" individuals) allege several wage-and-hour causes of action against Knight

7

Transportation, including: ( l) Failure to Pay Wages Due for Pre-and-Post-Trip Work and for

8

Delay Time per Cal. Labor Code §§ 1194 and 1194.2; (2) Failure to Pay the Promised and Stated

9

Piece-Rate per Cal. Labor Code §§ 222-223; (3) Failure to Pay Wages Due on Termination per

10

Cal. Labor Code§§ 201-203; and (4) Unfair/Unlawful Business Practices per Cal. Business and

11

Professions Code § 17200.

12

The Carson class is defined as: current and former truck drivers of Knight Transportation,

13

who were based in California, who performed at least one pre-trip or post-trip vehicle safety

14

inspection in California, and who were paid by a piece-rate compensation system from August

15

28, 2005 to the present. The thrust of plaintiffs' claims in Carson is that Knight Transportation

16

did not pay its California drivers compensation for non-driving work including pre-and-post-trip

17

vehicle inspections (which are required pre-requisites to driving their truck) or for delay periods

18

of two- hours or more associated with their driving duties. The remainder of the Carson claims

19

are derivatives of the first. One of those derivative claims is the failure to pay final wages at

20

termination (violation of Labor Code§§ 201-203) which has also been pled against Defendant in

21

the current litigation before this Court (as well as in the Morrison matter). Given that the class

22

definition in Carson will largely overlap with the class definition in the current litigation before

23

this Court (and with Morrison), there will thus be overlap between the three cases as to this one

24

claim, although this claim rests on a different theory in each case.

25
26

Procedurally, the Carson case is comparable to Morrison, i.e., the class was certified and
both parties' motions for summary judgment were denied. Defendant may move to partially

27
28

5

1

decertify the class.

2

VII.

3

Compliance with Federal Procedure
All counsel are expected to familiarize themselves with the Federal Rules of Civil

4

Procedure and the Local Rules of Practice of the Eastern District of California, and to keep

5

abreast of any amendments thereto. The Court must insist upon compliance with these Rules if it

6

is to efficiently handle its increasing case load and sanctions will be imposed for failure to follow

7

the Rules as provided in both the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules of

8

Practice for the Eastern District of California.

9
10

VIII. Effect of this Order
The foregoing order represents the best estimate of the court and counsel as to the

11

agenda most suitable to dispose of this case. The trial date reserved is specifically reserved for

12

this case. If the parties determine at any time that the schedule outlined in this order cannot be

13

met, counsel are ordered to notify the court immediately of that fact so that adjustments may be

14

made, either by stipulation or by subsequent status conference.

15

Stipulations extending the deadlines contained herein will not be considered

16

unless they are accompanied by affidavits or declarations, and where appropriate attached

17

exhibits, which establish good cause for granting the relief requested.

18

Failure to comply with this order may result in the imposition of sanctions.

19
20
21

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

July 14, 2011

/s/ Dennis L. Beck
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

6