Campbell v. PriceWaterhouse Coopers, LLP

Filing 563

ORDER signed by Judge Lawrence K. Karlton on 1/23/13 ORDERING the court concludes that defendant has not established cause for postponing the Scheduling Conference. Accordingly, defendant's ex parte application (ECF No. 560 ), is DENIED. (Becknal, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10
11
12

JASON CAMPBELL and
SARAH SOBEK, individually,
and on behalf of all other
similarly situated current
and former employees of
PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLP,,
NO. CIV. S-06-2376 LKK/GGH

13
Plaintiffs,
14
v.
15
16

PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS, LLP,
a Limited Liability Partnership;,
and DOES 1-100, inclusive,

O R D E R

17
Defendant.
/

18
19

On December 5, 2012, this court set a Scheduling Conference

20

in this matter for February 4, 2013, with Status Reports due on

21

January 18, 2013.

22

time advised the court that six weeks before, it had filed papers

23

at the Court of Appeals on December 7, 2012, seeking interlocutory

24

appeal of the November 29, 2012 order of this court denying

25

defendant’s motion to decertify the class.

26

postpone the February 4, 2013 Scheduling Conference based upon its

On January 18, 2013, defendant for the first

1

Defendant now seeks to

1

December 7, 2012 filing.1

2

As a separate ground for postponing the Scheduling Conference,

3

defendant says that its attorney, Daniel J. Thomasch, Esq., is not

4

available on February 4, 2013.

5

Lauren

6

Mircheff, Esq., Norman C. Hile, Esq., Julie A. Totten, Esq., David

7

A. Prahl, Esq., and/or Michel L. Maryott, Esq., who are also

8

attorneys

9

Conference, presumably in coordination with Mr. Thomasch, who is

10

J.

Elliot,

for

Esq.,

defendant,

Defendant does not assert that

Julian

could

W.

not

Poon,

Esq.,

conduct

Alexander

the

K.

Scheduling

lead counsel.2

11

The court concludes that defendant has not established cause

12

for postponing the Scheduling Conference. Accordingly, defendant’s

13

ex parte application (ECF No. 560), is DENIED.

14

IT IS SO ORDERED.

15

DATED:

January 23, 2013.

16
17
18
19
20
1

21
22
23
24
25
26

Defendant advises the court that the appellate filing was
made pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(f). The court assumes, without
deciding, that defendant was not required to notify this court of
its request for leave to appeal, however sensible it would have
been to do so. Given that the appellate filing is the basis for
the relief defendant seeks, it would have been the better practice
for defendant to let this court know about the filing around the
time it was made.
2

It would have been the better practice, in any event, to let
the court know about this conflict around the time the court’s
order issued scheduling the conference.
2