Ruff v. Del Monte Corporation et al

Filing 37

ORDER GRANTING ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION. Hearing on Motion to Consolidate set for 4/12/2013 09:00 AM in Courtroom 11, 19th Floor, San Francisco before Hon. Jeffrey S. White.. Signed by Judge Jeffrey S. White on 3/27/13. (jjoS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/27/2013)

Download PDF
Case3:12-cv-05251-JSW Document32-2 Filed03/21/13 Page1 of 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 SEEGER WEISS JONATHAN SHUB 1515 Market Street, Suite 1380 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19102 Telephone: 212/564-2300 jshub@seegerweiss.com COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP LLC JAMIE E. WEISS JULIE D. MILLER 513 Central Avenue, Suite 300 Highland Park, Illinois 60035 Telephone: 847/433-4500 Facsimile: 847/433-2500 jamie@complexlitgroup.com julie@complexlitgroup.com Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Proposed Class in Ruff v. Del Monte Corp., No. 3:12-cv-05251 SC [Additional Counsel listed on Signature Page] 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 14 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 15 16 17 MAXINE S. RUFF, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, 18 Plaintiff, 19 v. 20 21 22 23 DEL MONTE CORPORATION d/b/a DEL MONTE FOODS and MILO’S KITCHEN, LLC, Defendants. ___________________________ 24 25 26 27 28 [PROPOSED] ORDER – CASE NO. C 12-5251 JSW ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. C 12-05251 JSW CLASS ACTION [PROPOSED] ORDER DATE: April 12, 2013 TIME: 9:00 a.m. LOCATION: Courtroom 11, 19th Floor Case3:12-cv-05251-JSW Document32-2 Filed03/21/13 Page2 of 3 1 [PROPOSED] ORDER 2 GOOD CAUSE APPEARING, the Court hereby grants the following relief: 3 WHEREFORE, on December 18, 2012, Plaintiff Maxine Ruff filed a motion for 4 administrative relief to relate cases pursuant to Civil Local Rule 3-12 and to consolidate cases 5 pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a) in the case Langone v. Del Monte Corp 6 Corporation, et al., 12-CV-04671-JSW (“Langone”) (Langone Docket No. 6; “Motion to 7 Consolidate”); and 8 WHEREFORE, on January 9, 2013, Defendants Del Monte Corporation and Milo’s 9 Kitchen, LLC filed their Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Administrative Relief to Relate 10 Cases Pursuant to Civil L.R. 3-12 and Consolidate Cases Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a) in 11 Langone (Langone Docket No. 15; “Opposition to Consolidation”). Defendants also filed their 12 Motion to Stay Consideration of Plaintiffs Motion to Consolidate in Langone (Langone Docket 13 No. 16; “Motion to Stay”), and incorporated the arguments set forth therein into their Opposition 14 to Consolidation; and 15 WHEREFORE, on January 23, 2013, Plaintiffs filed their Opposition to Defendant Del 16 Monte Corporation and Milo’s Kitchen, LLC’s Motion to Stay Consideration of Plaintiff Ruff’s 17 Motion to Consolidate in Langone (Langone Docket. No. 22); and 18 WHEREFORE, on January 24, 2013, this Court issued its Order Granting Motion and 19 Stipulation to Relate; Denying Motion to Stay; and Order Setting Hearing Date on Pending 20 Motions in Langone (Langone Docket No. 28), and on January 25, 2013 entered the same order in 21 two additional cases ordered related to Langone, including the instant action Ruff v. Del Monte 22 Corporation, et al., 12-CV-05251-JSW (“Ruff”) and Funke v. Del Monte Corporation, et al.,12- 23 CV-05323-JSW (“Funke”) (Ruff Docket No. 21; Funke Docket No. 16) (hereinafter, the “Order”), 24 stating “Plaintiffs’ administrative motion to consolidate is not a proper subject of an administrative 25 motion. Because Defendants have filed an opposition, the Court shall not deny the motion on 26 procedural grounds. Plaintiffs shall file a reply to the motion to consolidate by no later than 27 February 8, 2013,” denying Defendants’ Motion to Stay, and further stating that “The Court shall 28 [PROPOSED] ORDER – CASE NO. C 12-5251 JSW -1- Case3:12-cv-05251-JSW Document32-2 Filed03/21/13 Page3 of 3 1 consider Plaintiffs’ motion to consolidate in conjunction with the motions to transfer and dismiss 2 in the Ruff case [] and the Funke case [] on Friday, April 12 2013, at 9:00 a.m.”; and 3 4 WHEREFORE, on February 6, 2013, Plaintiffs filed their Reply to Defendants’ Opposition to Motion to Consolidate (Langone Dkt. No. 34); and 5 WHEREFORE, on March 20, 2013, Plaintiffs filed an Administrative Motion Requesting 6 Consideration of Motion to Consolidate concurrently with the Declaration of Edmund S. 7 Aronowitz Re Administrative Motion Requesting Consideration of Motion to Consolidate; 8 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT, Plaintiffs’ Administrative Motion Requesting 9 Consideration of Motion to Consolidate is GRANTED and the Court shall accordingly consider 10 the Motion to Consolidate fully submitted without further motion or briefing by any party and 11 shall hear and consider all motions, including Plaintiffs’ motion to consolidate Ruff v. Del Monte 12 Corporation, et al., 12-CV-05251-JSW and Funke v. Del Monte Corporation, et al.,12-CV-05323- 13 JSW with each other, on April 12, 2013 at 9:00 a.m. 14 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. 16 17 18 19 March 27, 2013 DATED: ______________ _______________________________________________ THE HONORABLE JEFFREY S. WHITE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 [PROPOSED] ORDER – CASE NO. C 12-5251 JSW -2-

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?