Sandoval et al v. County of Sonoma et al

Filing 193

ORDER vacating 179 Motion to Certify Class. Signed by Judge Thelton E. Henderson. (tehlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/22/2014)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3
4

RAFAEL MATEOS SANDOVAL, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

5
6
7
8

v.
COUNTY OF SONOMA, et al.,

Case No. 11-cv-05817-TEH
ORDER VACATING PLAINTIFFS'
MOTION FOR CLASS
CERTIFICATION

Defendants.

9
10

This matter is scheduled for hearing on October 6, 2014, on Plaintiffs’ motion for

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

class certification. However, there is also a hearing scheduled on October 27, 2014, on the

12

parties’ cross-motions for partial summary judgment. Because the Court finds that the

13

motions for partial summary judgment should be decided before addressing class

14

certification, the currently pending motion for class certification is VACATED.

15
16

DISCUSSION

17

A court must determine whether to certify a class action “[a]t an early practicable

18

time after a person sues . . . as a class representative.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(1)(A). This

19

language was revised in 2003; the Rule previously required the determination to be made

20

“as soon as practicable after commencement of an action.” Id. advisory committee’s note.

21

The prior language “neither reflect[ed] prevailing practice nor capture[d] the many valid

22

reasons that may justify deferring the initial certification decision,” including pre-

23

certification motions for summary judgment. Ibid. The Ninth Circuit recognized that even

24

the prior rule was “not absolute”: “where it is more practicable to do so and where the

25

parties will not suffer significant prejudice—the district court has discretion to rule on a

26

motion for summary judgment before it decides the certification issue.” Wright v. Schock,

27

742 F.2d 541, 543-44 (9th Cir. 1984); see also Khasin v. Hershey Co., 2014 WL 1779805

28

at *2 (N.D. Cal. May 5, 2014).

1

The Court finds that it is “more practicable” to resolve the pending motions for

2

summary judgment before addressing the motion for class certification. As the parties

3

agreed in their most recent stipulation, “resolution of Plaintiffs’ proposed issue will

4

significantly and materially affect the resolution of Fourth Amendment claims in the case,

5

including putative class issues.” Joint Stipulation at 2 (Docket No. 178). The fact that the

6

parties agreed on this point indicates that they view the motions for summary judgment as

7

a high priority. And while only Plaintiffs said as much explicitly, the Court agrees that

8

“the size of the proposed classes will differ greatly depending on resolution of the

9

identified issue.” Id. at 3.
Moreover, Defendants have not shown what “significant prejudice” they will suffer

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

by delaying consideration of this motion. Defendants point to two sources of prejudice

12

allegedly caused by the delay: first, that too much time has passed for the relevant

13

individuals to recall the salient events, and second, that the “focus of litigation thus far”

14

has been on the named plaintiffs, and it would be unfair at this point to shift to defending a

15

class action. City Defendants’ Opp’n at 10 (Docket No. 190); see also Sheriff Freitas’s

16

Opp’n at 4 (Docket No. 192). Although the Court agrees that the pace of this litigation

17

must accelerate, Defendants’ first argument fails to show why the incremental delay

18

caused by ruling first on the motions for summary judgment will pose an appreciable

19

obstacle to the witnesses’ memories and ability to collect evidence.
Defendants’ second argument is even less persuasive. This case was filed as a class

20
21

action in 2011, and the parties have repeatedly discussed the litigation in the context of

22

classwide resolution. See, e.g., Class Action Complaint (Docket No. 1). Defendants were

23

on notice from the beginning that a motion for class certification would be filed at some

24

point. While the parties may have “focused” on the named plaintiffs’ issues first,

25

Defendants always knew that they may need to defend against a larger class.

26

//

27

//

28

//
2

1

Nonetheless, the Court recognizes that this litigation’s third anniversary is fast

2

approaching. Evidentiary problems will only increase as further time passes.

3

Accordingly, the parties are instructed to prepare a briefing schedule for a motion for class

4

certification to be included in the case management statement due October 20, 2014.

5
6
7

CONCLUSION
For the reasons given above, Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification is VACATED.
Defendant Sheriff Freitas’s motion to strike portions of Plaintiffs’ counsel Donald Cook’s

9

declaration is VACATED. Parties shall include a briefing schedule for a future motion for

10

class certification in their case management statement, to be addressed at the joint motion

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

8

hearing and case management conference on October 27, 2014.

12
13

IT IS SO ORDERED.

14
15
16

Dated: 09/22/2014

_____________________________________
THELTON E. HENDERSON
United States District Judge

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

3