Wilson v. Conair Corporation

Filing 111

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER signed by Senior Judge William B. Shubb on 1/25/2016 GRANTING 108 Plaintiff's Ex Parte Application for an Order Shortening Time: The hearing for 107 Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File First Amended Class Actio n Complaint shall be moved to 2/8/2016 at 01:30 PM in Courtroom 5 (WBS) before Senior Judge William B. Shubb. Defendant's opposition or statement of non-opposition must be filed by 2/1/2016. Plaintiff's reply must be filed by 2/3/2016. All motions to certify or decertify a class shall be filed on or before March 7, 2016. (Kirksey Smith, K)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

----oo0oo----

11
12
13
14
15
16
17

DELIA WILSON, on behalf of
herself and all others
similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,
v.
CONAIR CORPORATION,

CIV. NO. 1:14-00894 WBS SAB
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER RE:
PLAINTIFF’S APPLICATION TO
SHORTEN TIME ON PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A FIRST
AMENDED COMPLAINT AND TO
CONTINUE CLASS CERTIFICATION

Defendant.

18
19
----oo0oo----

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Plaintiff Delia Wilson brought this putative class
action against Conair Corporation, asserting violations of the
Consumers Legal Remedies Act, Cal. Civ. Code § 1750 et seq., the
Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200, and
breach of implied warranty for allegedly misrepresenting the
safety of Conair’s Curling Irons, Straightening Irons, and
Curling Brushes.

Plaintiff now applies to shorten the time on

her motion for leave to file a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”),
1

1

requesting that the court move the hearing date from February 22,

2

2016 to February 1, 2016.

3

seeks an extension of thirty days to file her motion for class

4

certification, requesting that the court move the deadline from

5

February 5, 2016 to March 7, 2016.

6

plaintiff’s application to shorten time on the motion to amend

7

and to extend time on the motion for class certification.

8

(Def.’s Opp’n (Docket No. 109).)

9

I.

(Docket No. 108.)

(Id.)

Plaintiff also

Defendant opposes

Shortening Time on Motion to Amend

10

Under Local Rule 144(e), “applications to shorten time

11

shall set forth by affidavit of counsel the circumstances claimed

12

to justify the issuance of an order shortening time.”

13

Local R. 144(e).

14

E.D. Cal.

Plaintiff requests shortened time because the statute

15

of limitations on her proposed personal injury claims expires on

16

February 12, 2016, before the current hearing date of February

17

22, 2016.

18

108-1).)

19

claims because of her “ongoing problems attributed to the initial

20

injury.”

21

injured by a Conair Styling Iron when the power cord crackled and

22

emitted sparks that hit the right side of her face and chest.

23

(MacPherson Decl. ¶ 20.)

24

which she continues to see her eye doctor and which continues to

25

require eye medication.

26

FAC adds a class action claim regarding Conair’s alleged failure

27

to report complaints of power cord ruptures on styling irons.

28

(Id.)

(Pl.’s Appl. at 1; MacPherson Decl. ¶ 21 (Docket No.
Plaintiff is now pursuing individual personal injury

(Pl.’s Appl. at 3.)

Plaintiff alleges that she was

She suffered a corneal abrasion for

(Id.)

In addition, plaintiff’s proposed

Plaintiff seeks to include this new allegation in her
2

1

motion for class certification, which must be filed by February

2

5, 2016.

3

(Id. at 2.)
Defendant opposes shortening time because defendant

4

already stipulated to shortened time when plaintiff moved to

5

continue the motion for class certification by sixty days in

6

December 2015.

7

argues that if the court shortens time it will not have enough

8

time to serve plaintiff with a Rule 11 motion for sanctions and

9

provide plaintiff with the required 21 day safe-harbor period.

(Def.’s Opp’n at 2.)

In addition, defendant

10

(Id. at 7.)

11

plaintiff’s underlying motion to amend was filed for improper

12

purposes and the new allegations plaintiff proposes are not

13

supported by facts or existing law.

14

plaintiff stated in her original Complaint that though she

15

“suffered physical harm from use of the Styling Iron, plaintiff

16

is not seeking the recovery of her personal injury damages” or

17

“any personal injury damages on behalf of class members.”

18

(Compl. at 2 (Docket No. 1).)

19

now contradicting this affirmative representation by seeking to

20

allege individual personal injury claims in her FAC.

21

Defendant seeks sanctions because it argues

(Id. at 6.)

For example,

Defendant argues that plaintiff is

The court finds that the statute of limitations for

22

plaintiff’s personal injury claims is a satisfactory reason for

23

shortening time on plaintiff’s motion to amend.

24

desire to file Rule 11 sanctions does not justify denying

25

plaintiff’s motion.

26

application to shorten time on her motion for leave to file a FAC

27

and moves the hearing to February 8, 2016.

28

///

Defendant’s

Accordingly, the court grants plaintiff’s

3

1

II.

Extending Time on Motion for Class Certification

2

On December 4, 2014, this court issued a Status

3

(Pretrial Scheduling) Order that required all motions to certify

4

or decertify a class be filed on or before January 5, 2016.

5

December 2015, plaintiff requested a sixty-day extension in order

6

to resolve outstanding discovery issues before filing her motion

7

for class certification.

8

plaintiff had not shown good cause for a sixty-day extension of

9

time as the seven discovery issues plaintiff raised had largely

In

Magistrate Judge Boone found that

10

been resolved.

11

a thirty day extension because the parties had only resolved

12

outstanding discovery disputes on December 22, 2015 and needed

13

time to exchange and review the agreed upon disclosures.

14

No. 106.)

15

deadline to February 5, 2016.

16

additional thirty-day extension.

17

However, Magistrate Judge Boone granted plaintiff

(Docket

Magistrate Judge Boone therefore moved the filing
(Id.)

Plaintiff now seeks an

Amendments of the scheduling order are governed by

18

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16, which provides that a

19

scheduling order “may be modified only for good cause and with

20

the judge’s consent.”

21

‘good cause’ standard primarily considers the diligence of the

22

party seeking amendment.”

23

party was not diligent, the inquiry should end.”

24

the focus of the inquiry is on the moving party’s diligence, “the

25

existence or degree of prejudice to the party opposing the

26

modification might supply additional reasons to deny a motion.”

27

Id.; see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b) (“When an act may or must be

28

done within a specified time, the court may, for good cause,

Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4).

“Rule 16(b)’s

Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609.

4

Id.

“If that
Although

1
2

extend time.”).
Plaintiff contends that she needs an additional thirty

3

days to file her motion for class certification because at the

4

December 2, 2015 deposition of Conair’s witness, Pam Keegan,

5

plaintiff learned that Conair does not report complaints of power

6

and cord ruptures on Conair styling irons to the federal Consumer

7

Product Safety Commission.

8

¶¶ 16-19.)

9

unfair and deceptive business practice and seeks to add this

(Pl.’s Appl. at 3; MacPherson Decl.

Plaintiff argues that this failure to report is an

10

allegation to her Complaint.

11

allegation is critical to supporting her motion for class

12

certification.

13

for leave to file a FAC decided prior to the date on which she

14

must file her motion for class certification.

15

(Id.)

(Id.)

She argues that this new

As a result, she seeks to have her motion

While Pam Keegan was deposed prior to plaintiff’s

16

December 16, 2015 application for a sixty-day extension,

17

plaintiff had not yet filed her motion to amend the Complaint.

18

Further, plaintiff did not identify Conair’s alleged failure to

19

report as a justification in her prior application for an

20

extension.

21

that plaintiff was sufficiently diligent in seeking to

22

incorporate the reporting failure into her Complaint and motion

23

for class certification, even though she technically could have

24

raised this issue in her prior motion for an extension.

25

(See Docket Nos. 97, 106.)

The court therefore finds

In addition, the extension of time will not prejudice

26

defendant as it will not cause additional changes to the

27

scheduling order--the pre-trial conference will remain on

28

November 7, 2016 with trial set for January 10, 2017.
5

Granting

1

an extension also will not interfere substantially with

2

discovery, which remains open until July 1, 2015.

3

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that plaintiff’s application

4

for an Order shortening the time on the motion to amend and

5

extending the time in which to file the motion for class

6

certification be, and the same hereby is, GRANTED.

7

The hearing for plaintiff’s motion to amend shall be

8

moved to February 8, 2016 at 1:30 p.m.

Defendant’s opposition or

9

statement of non-opposition must be filed by February 1, 2016.

10

Plaintiff’s reply must be filed by February 3, 2016.

11

to certify or decertify a class shall be filed on or before March

12

7, 2016.

13

Dated:

January 25, 2016

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
6

All motions