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: 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?