Cruz et al v. Dollar Tree Stores, Inc.

Filing 83

ORDER by Judge Samuel Conti granting Ex Parte Application (sclc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/12/2008) (Entered: 11/12/2008) (tdm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/5/2008)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 For the Northern District of California UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA United States District Court 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 MIGUEL A. CRUZ, and JOHN D. HANSEN,) individually and on behalf of all ) others similarly situated, ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) ) v. ) ) DOLLAR TREE STORES, INC., ) Defendant. ) ___________________________________) ) ROBERT RUNNINGS, individually, and ) on behalf of all others similarly ) ) situated, ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) ) DOLLAR TREE STORES, INC., ) Defendant. ) ) ) Case Nos. 07-2050 SC 07-4012 SC ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF ROBERT RUNNINGS' EX PARTE APPLICATION TO ENLARGE TIME FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION I. INTRODUCTION This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff Robert Runnings' Ex Parte Application to Enlarge Time for Class Certification ("Application"). Docket No. 88. Defendant Dollar Tree Stores, Inc. ("Defendant" or "Dollar Tree") filed an Opposition. Docket No. 91. For the following reasons, the Application is GRANTED. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 For the Northern District of California II. DISCUSSION In these consolidated cases, Plaintiffs allege they were improperly classified as exempt managers and denied wages for overtime. In August 2007, Dollar Tree removed Plaintiff's action Docket No. 1. On December 13, from state court to this Court. Plaintiff propounded his first set of special interrogatories. Bissen Decl., Docket No. 89, 4, Ex. A. Special Interrogatory No. 1 requested that Dollar Tree identify each and every class member. Id. On January 19, 2008, Dollar Tree filed its summary Docket No. 36. On January 29, Dollar Tree Bissen Decl. judgment motion. United States District Court 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 objected to Plaintiff's Special Interrogatory No. 1. 4, Ex. B. On February 15, the Court established a briefing schedule for the summary judgment motion and set a hearing on the motion for March 21. Docket No. 48. The hearing was subsequently vacated, the Court took the summary judgment motion under submission, and, on July 8, issued an Order denying the summary judgment motion.1 Docket No. 66. On July 30, the Court ordered the parties to file their respective motions, including Plaintiff's anticipated motion for class certification, with a hearing date of December 5. No. 68. Docket Two months after the Court denied Dollar Tree's motion for summary judgment, and more than seven months after Dollar Tree objected to Plaintiff's First Special Interrogatory No. 1, Plaintiff strenuously argues that the summary judgment motion was pending before the Court for six months. As should be obvious, however, motions are not pending until they are fully briefed and the motion hearing date has passed. Plaintiff's calculation of six months is, therefore, in error. 2 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 For the Northern District of California Plaintiff finally filed a motion to compel a response to this interrogatory. Docket No. 69, filed on September 5, 2008. Plaintiff now argues that he, and the proposed class, "may experience substantial harm and irreversible prejudice" if an enlargement is not granted, as discovery will not be complete. Application at 3. Plaintiff's statement that "[t]here have been no unjustified delays on Plaintiff's part in litigating this case" is somewhat suspect in light of the above-detailed timeline. Application at 3. Nonetheless, the Court finds that the risk of prejudice, especially to other class members, warrants an enlargement. United States District Court 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 III. CONCLUSION For the reasons stated above, Plaintiff's Application is GRANTED. The Case Management Conference scheduled for December 5, 2008, is hereby RESCHEDULED for April 3, 2009, at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom 1 on the 17th floor. noticed for April 3. Any motions shall be filed and IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: November 12, 2008 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 3

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?