Ruff v. Del Monte Corporation et al

Filing 21

ORDER GRANTING MOTION AND STIPULATION TO RELATE; DENYING MOTION TO STAY AND ORDER SETTING HEARING ON PENDING MOTIONS. Signed by Judge Jeffrey S. White on 1/24/13. (jjoS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/25/2013)

1
2
3
4
5
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6
7

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9

CHRISTOPHER V. LANGONE,
Plaintiff,

For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10
11
12

No. C 12-04671 JSW
ORDER GRANTING MOTION and
STIPULATION TO RELATE;
DENYING MOTION TO STAY;
AND ORDER SETTING HEARING
DATE ON PENDING MOTIONS

v.
DEL MONTE CORP CORPORATION, et al.,
Defendants.

13

/
14
15

On December 18, 2012, Plaintiff filed a motion for administrative relief to relate cases

16

pursuant to Civil Local Rule 3-12 and to consolidate cases pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil

17

Procedure 42(a). (Docket No. 6). Plaintiff asks the Court to relate this case with Ruff v. Del

18

Monte Corporation, et al., 12-CV-05251-SC and Funke v. Del Monte Corporation, et al., 12-

19

CV-05323-MEJ. On that same date, Plaintiff filed a stipulation and proposed order to relate the

20

Langone, Ruff, and Funke cases. (Docket No. 7.) That stipulation was signed by all parties

21

who had appeared in those three actions.1 Defendants, Del Monte Corporation and Milo’s

22

Kitchen LLC, however declined to stipulate to consolidate the cases, have opposed the request

23

to consolidate (see Docket No. 15), and have moved to stay consideration of the motion to

24

consolidate pending rulings on motions to dismiss that have been filed in the Ruff and Funke

25

cases. (See Docket No. 16.) The Plaintiffs in Langone, Ruff, and Funke have filed an

26

opposition to the motion to stay. (Docket No. 22.)

27
28
Plaintiff Langone also named as Defendants Kroger Co. and King Supers Inc.
Neither Kroger no King Supers has appeared in this action and it is not clear that they have
been served with the complaint or any of the pending motions.
1

1

In light of the parties stipulation to relate these cases, the Court GRANTS, IN PART,

2

the administrative motion to relate and GRANTS the stipulation to relate the Langone, Ruff, and

3

Funke cases. (Docket Nos. 6, 7.) The Ruff and Funke cases shall be reassigned to the

4

undersigned Judge. Counsel are instructed that all future filings in any reassigned case are to

5

bear the initials of the newly assigned judge immediately after the case number. Any case

6

management conference in any reassigned case is VACATED and shall be rescheduled by the

7

Court after it has resolved the pending motions. All previously scheduled dates for hearing

8

noticed motions are VACATED, and shall be rescheduled as set forth in the remainder of this

9

Order.
The Court now turns to the pending motions. Plaintiffs’ administrative motion to

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

consolidate is not a proper subject of an administrative motion. Because Defendants have filed

12

an opposition, the Court shall not deny the motion on procedural grounds. Plaintiffs shall file a

13

reply to the motion to consolidate by no later than February 8, 2013.

14

The Court also has considered Defendants’ motion to stay. Although Defendants have

15

not yet filed a reply, Plaintiffs have opposed that motion. The Court finds that, in the interests

16

of judicial efficiency and economy, all pending motions should be heard and considered on the

17

same date. Accordingly, the Court DENIES the motion to stay a ruling on the motion to

18

consolidate. (Docket No. 16.)

19

The Court shall consider Plaintiffs’ motion to consolidate in conjunction with the

20

motions to transfer and to dismiss in the Ruff case (Docket No. 17) and the Funke case (Docket

21

No. 6) on Friday, April 12, 2013 at 9:00 a.m. Defendants do not need to re-file or re-notice

22

these motions. If Defendants file a motion to transfer and to dismiss in this, the Langone, case,

23

they shall notice that motion for hearing on April 12, 2013.

24

It is FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ oppositions to the motions to transfer and to

25

dismiss in the Ruff and Funke cases shall be due by February 15, 2013, and Defendants’ replies

26

shall be due by February 22, 2013. If Defendants file a motion to transfer and to dismiss in this

27

case, Plaintiffs’ opposition and Defendants reply shall be due in accordance with the deadlines

28

set forth in Northern District Civil Local Rule 7-3.
2

1

The Court also ADVISES the parties that, with the exception of motions for summary

2

judgment, it does not follow the page limitations set forth in Civil Local Rules 7-2(b) and 7-

3

3(a). See Civil Standing Order, ¶ 7. Any motions that are already on file and that do not

4

conform with the Court’s page limitations shall be exempted from these requirements. If any

5

party seeks to exceed the page limitations for an opposition or reply brief or for a motion that

6

has yet to be filed, they must submit motion for administrative relief, or a stipulation, for leave

7

to file an oversized brief that shows good cause for the request. Any such motion or stipulation

8

must be filed in advance of the date on which the brief is due, in order to give an opposing party

9

time to respond and to give time to the Court to rule on the request.
Finally, if any party seeks to extend a deadline set by this Order or seeks to continue the

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

hearing date, they must submit a motion for administrative relief, or a stipulation, showing good

12

cause for the request. Any such motion or stipulation must be filed in advance of the date on

13

which the brief is due, in order to give an opposing party time to respond and to give time to the

14

Court to rule on the request.

15

IT IS SO ORDERED.

16
17

Dated: January 24, 2013
JEFFREY S. WHITE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3