Beauperthuy et al v. 24 Hour Fitness USA, Inc. et al

Filing 466

ORDER by Judge Samuel Conti denying #462 Motion to Shorten Time (sclc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/16/2011)

1
2
3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5
6
7
8
9

For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10
11
12
13
14
15

GABE BEAUPERTHUY, et al.,

)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
v.
)
)
24 HOUR FITNESS USA, INC., a
)
California corporation dba 24 HOUR )
FITNESS; SPORT AND FITNESS CLUBS
)
OF AMERICA, INC., a California
)
corporation dba 24 HOUR FITNESS,
)
)
Defendants.
)
)

Case No. 06-715 SC
ORDER RE PLAINTIFFS' MOTION
TO RELATE CASES; MOTIONS TO
SHORTEN TIME; MOTION FOR
TEMPORARY RESTRAINING
ORDER; MOTION FOR
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

Before the Court are the following six motions filed by

16

Plaintiffs Gabe Beauperthuy, et al., ("Plaintiffs") against

17

Defendants 24 Hour Fitness USA, Inc. and Sport and Fitness Clubs of

18

America, Inc. (collectively "24 Hour Fitness" or "Defendants"):

19

Plaintiffs' Motion to Relate Cases, ECF No. 461; Plaintiffs' Motion

20

to Shorten Time on Motion to Relate Cases, ECF No. 462; Plaintiffs'

21

Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order ("TRO"), ECF No. 458;

22

Plaintiffs' Motion for a Preliminary Injunction, ECF No. 463; and

23

Plaintiffs' Motion to Shorten Time on Motion for Preliminary

24

Injunction, ECF No. 464.

25

Plaintiffs state that they have recently filed in this

26

district individual Petitions to Compel Arbitration on behalf of

27

273 claimants who were former class members in this action.

28

Plaintiffs state that Defendants have recently filed and are

1

continuing to file petitions to compel arbitration as to the same

2

claimants in various district courts throughout the country (the

3

"later-filed actions").

4

received motion dates as early as December 30, 2011 in some of the

5

later filed actions and therefore seek to have this Court enjoin

6

those actions prior to December 30, 2011.

7

Plaintiffs note that Defendants have

In total, Plaintiffs ask the Court to do the following:

8

immediately grant their Motion to Relate Cases and schedule a

9

hearing on their Motion for a TRO at the soonest possible date;

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

10

issue a TRO at that hearing enjoining Defendants from continuing to

11

file or prosecute petitions to compel arbitration outside of this

12

jurisdiction; hold a hearing on their motion for preliminary

13

injunction prior to December 30, 2011 and issue a preliminary

14

injunction barring further proceedings in the later-filed actions;

15

and, hold a hearing on the merits of the related petitions prior to

16

December 30, 2011.

17

Plaintiffs argue that this urgent pace is necessary to prevent

18

them from having to defend their status as the first-filed action

19

in dozens of courts across the country, hire local counsel in each

20

district, and to prevent the relitigation of issues already decided

21

in this Court's prior rulings, such as whether Plaintiffs' claims

22

are time-barred and whether Plaintiffs followed the proper

23

procedures for requesting arbitration.

24

Plaintiffs' Motion to Shorten Time on the Motion to Relate

25

Cases is DENIED.

Defendants shall be afforded the four days to

26

oppose the Motion to Relate provided in Civil Local Rules 3-12(e)

27

and 7-11(b), and the Court will rule on the Motion to Relate within

28

the fourteen day window provided by Civil Local Rule 3-12(f)(2).

2

1

After ruling on the Motion to Relate, the Court will set

2

appropriate dates for hearings on Plaintiffs' Motion for TRO and

3

Motion for a Preliminary Injunction.

4
5

IT IS SO ORDERED.

6
7
8

Dated: December 16, 2011
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

9

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

3