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)

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: [phone]
[e-mail]
COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP LLC
JAMIE E. WEISS
JULIE D. MILLER
513 Central Avenue, Suite 300
Highland Park, Illinois 60035
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: 847/433-2500
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
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-