Friend et al v. The Hertz Corporation

Filing 89

ORDER DIRECTING PARTIES TO FILE SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDA; CONTINUING HEARING ON PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION AND DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO STRIKE. The parties shall file their respective supplemental memorandum, not to exceed ten pa ges in length, no later than January 7, 2011. The hearings on plaintiffs' motion for class certification and defendant's motion to strike are continued from December 17, 2010 to January 28, 2011. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on December 14, 2010. (mmclc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/14/2010)

Friend et al v. The Hertz Corporation

Doc. 89

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Before the Court is plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification, filed September 17, 2010; defendant has filed opposition thereto, plaintiffs have filed a reply, and defendant has filed a surreply. Also before the Court is defendant's Motion to Strike, filed October 15, 2010; plaintiffs have filed opposition thereto, and defendant has filed a reply. Both parties, in their respective briefing in support of and in opposition to the motion for class certification, cite to and rely on the Ninth Circuit's decision in Dukes v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 603 F.3d 571 (9th Cir. 2010). Subsequent to such briefing, however, the United States Supreme Court granted a petition for a writ of certiorari. See Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, -- S.Ct. -- , 2010 WL 3358931 (Dec. 6, 2010). Under the circumstances, the Court hereby DIRECTS each party to file a supplemental memorandum addressing whether resolution of the instant motion for class certification should be stayed pending the Supreme Court's ruling in Dukes. See, e.g., Landis v. North American Co., v. HERTZ CORPORATION, Defendant. / MELINDA FRIEND, et al., Plaintiff, No. C-07-5222 MMC ORDER DIRECTING PARTIES TO FILE SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDA; CONTINUING HEARING ON PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION AND DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO STRIKE United States District Court IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Dockets.Justia.com

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

299 U.S. 248, 254, 258 (1936) (holding district court has power to stay proceedings in light of pendency of another action; observing district court should consider if "decision [in other action] may be expected within a reasonable time"). Additionally, the parties are hereby DIRECTED to address the propriety of the named plaintiffs' representing a class seeking injunctive relief, given that each of said plaintiffs is a former employee of defendant. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(3). The parties shall file their respective supplemental memorandum, not to exceed ten pages in length, no later than January 7, 2011. The hearings on plaintiffs' motion for class certification and defendant's motion to strike are hereby CONTINUED from December 17, 2010 to January 28, 2011. IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 14, 2010

MAXINE M. CHESNEY United States District Judge

2