Pizana v. Sanmedica International LLC

Filing 124

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART 121 Defendant's Ex Parte Application and GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART 122 Plaintiff's Ex Parte Application signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 12/30/2020. Defendant's Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion to Amend due by 1/15/2021. Plaintiff's Reply due by 1/22/2021. Hearing on Plaintiff's Motion to Amend is VACATED. (Jessen, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12

RAUL PIZANA, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff,

13
14
15
16

No. 1:18-cv-00644-DAD-SKO

v.
SANMEDICA INTERNATIONAL LLC,

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND
DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT’S
EX PARTE APPLICATION AND GRANTING
IN PART AND DENYING IN PART
PLAINTIFF’S EX PARTE APPLICATION

Defendant.
(Doc. Nos. 121, 122)

17
18
19

The matters before the court are defendant SanMedica International, LLC’s ex parte

20

application (Doc. No. 121) and plaintiff Raul Pizana’s ex parte application (Doc. No. 122). For

21

the reasons set forth below, defendant’s ex parte application (Doc. No. 121) is granted in part and

22

denied in part and plaintiff’s ex parte application (Doc. No. 122) is granted.

23

On December 28, 2020, defendant filed an ex parte application for an order (1) that the

24

hearing on plaintiff’s motion to amend his complaint (Doc. No. 118) be rescheduled from January

25

19, 2021 to February 16, 2021 or later; and/or that (2) defendant’s deadline to file its response to

26

plaintiff’s motion amend his complaint be extended until January 26, 2021 because plaintiff filed

27

his motion to amend (Doc. No. 118) eleven minutes after the midnight filing deadline for the

28

January 19, 2021 hearing date and because of difficulty caused by defense counsel’s limited
1

1

staffing and availability over the holidays as well as defendant’s closure between Christmas and

2

New Year’s Day. (Doc. No. 121 at 6, 10.) On December 30, 2020, plaintiff filed both an

3

opposition to defendant’s ex parte application and his own ex parte application requesting an

4

order that (1) the January 22, 2021 deadline to file plaintiff’s motion for class certification be

5

vacated and (2) the parties be given two weeks to stipulate to a new scheduling order. (Doc. Nos.

6

74, 122.) Plaintiff opposes defendant’s requested ex parte relief because of the alleged

7

prejudicial effect a schedule change would have on plaintiff’s upcoming motion for class

8

certification and because he disputes defendant’s description of the meet and confer process.

9

(Doc. No. 122.)

10

As the parties are aware, the ongoing Judicial Emergency in the Eastern District of

11

California faced by this court has caused regular hearings for civil law and motion to no longer be

12

possible except in situations where the court deems one to be absolutely necessary. (Doc. No. 70

13

at 3.) Accordingly, all motions filed before the undersigned are deemed submitted upon the

14

record and briefs pursuant to Local Rule 230(g) and the hearing date functions only to govern the

15

opposition and reply filing deadlines. (Id.) Written decisions issue as soon as is practicable in

16

light of the Court’s extraordinarily heavy caseload. (See Doc. No. 68.) Civil motions set before

17

district judges in this district are likely to experience significant delays due to the extreme

18

shortage of judicial resources. (Id.)

19

The undersigned has reviewed the parties’ dueling narratives regarding the meet and

20

confer process, and the parties are admonished to better exhaust the meet and confer efforts in the

21

future prior to the filing of ex parte applications for relief.

22

Based upon that review, the court finds that although defendant has not been prejudiced

23

by plaintiff’s eleven-minutes-late filing of a motion that defendant was aware was forthcoming

24

(Doc. Nos. 122-4, 122-5), defendant will nonetheless be granted an additional 10 days to file a

25

response to the plaintiff’s motion to amend in light of the difficulties caused by limited

26

availability over the holidays. The court also finds that because plaintiff would be prejudiced by

27

being required to file a motion for class certification in advance of any ruling on plaintiff’s

28

motion to amend, the schedule for the class certification motion in this case must be modified in
2

1

any event. The case is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for a further scheduling

2

conference to set a revised schedule with respect to plaintiff’s motion for class certification.

3

Accordingly,

4

1. Defendant SanMedica International, LLC’s ex parte application (Doc. No. 121) is

5
6

granted in part and denied in part;
2. Plaintiff Pizana’s ex parte application (Doc. No. 122) is granted in part and denied in

7
8

part;
3. The hearing on plaintiff’s motion to amend his complaint (Doc. No. 118), currently set

9

for January 19, 2021, is vacated pursuant to Local Rule 230(g) and in light of the

10
11

ongoing Judicial Emergency;
4. The deadline for defendant’s opposition to plaintiff’s motion to amend his complaint

12
13

(Doc. No. 118) is extended from January 5, 2021 until January 15, 2021;
5. The deadline for plaintiff’s reply to plaintiff’s motion to amend his complaint (Doc.

14

No. 118) is extended from January 12, 2021 until January 22, 2021; and

15

6. The case is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for a further scheduling

16

conference to set a revised schedule with respect to plaintiff’s motion for class

17

certification.

18
19

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

December 30, 2020
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3