Flores et al v. Velocity Express, Inc.

Filing 164

ORDER ALTERING BRIEFING AND HEARING SCHEDULE ON MOTION FOR INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL re 162 MOTION to Amend/Correct 156 Order on Motion for Summary Judgment To Certify The Same For Interlocutory Appeal Pursuant To 28 U.S.C. Section 1292(b) filed by TransForce, Inc., Dynamex Operations East, LLC, Velocity Express, LLC. Signed by Judge Jon S. Tigar on May 14, 2015. (wsn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/14/2015)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

PHILLIP FLORES, et al.,

Case No. 12-cv-05790-JST

Plaintiffs,
8
v.
9
10

VELOCITY EXPRESS, LLC, et al.,
Defendants.

ORDER ALTERING BRIEFING AND
HEARING SCHEDULE ON MOTION
FOR INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL
Re: ECF No. 162

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

The Court has received Defendants’ Motion to Amend April 16, 2015 Partial Summary

13

Judgment Order To Certify the Same for Interlocutory Appeal, ECF No. 162. In the motion,

14

Defendants ask the Court to certify two legal issues for interlocutory appeal, and also raise a

15

question regarding which entity, Transforce or Dynamex, is the proper entity for the purposes of

16

successor liability in this case. See id. at 7 n.2.

17

Defendants first raised the issue of the distinction between Dynamex and TransForce for

18

purposes of successor liability at the January 15, 2015 hearing on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Partial

19

Summary Judgment. See Hr’g Tr., ECF No. 158, 18:1-9. At the same hearing, Plaintiffs appeared

20

to concede that Dynamex is the appropriate entity for successor liability. Id. 19:14-23:11, 20:10-

21

14 (“The actual acquiring entity is Dynamex. There was -- the way that the transaction worked is

22

the company that paid the money to ConVest was Dynamex. So the easiest way to do this is to

23

say that Dynamex was the acquirer.”). Without conceding that successor liability was appropriate,

24

Defendants appeared to agree that Dynamex was the appropriate subject of Plaintiffs’ motion. Id.

25

29:18-30:12; see also ECF No. 150 at 12-17.

26

Accordingly, the Court hereby orders as follows:

27

1.

28

In their opposition to Defendants’ motion for interlocutory appeal, Plaintiffs shall

address whether they concede that Dynamex is the appropriate entity for the purposes of successor

1

liability in this case. Plaintiffs should also address what effect, if any, the distinction between the

2

companies has on the analysis of successor liability. Plaintiffs are hereby granted leave to file up

3

to five additional pages in their opposition in order to address these issues (i.e., Plaintiffs may file

4

an opposition of not more than thirty total pages).
2.

5

In any reply in support of the motion for interlocutory appeal, Defendants shall also

6

address whether they concede that Dynamex is the appropriate entity for the purposes of successor

7

liability (as opposed to whether successor liability is appropriate at all) and what effect, if any, the

8

distinction has on the analysis of successor liability. Defendants are hereby granted leave to file

9

up to five additional pages in their reply to address these issues (i.e., Defendants may file a reply

10

of not more than twenty total pages).
3.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

The briefing dates for Plaintiffs’ opposition and Defendants’ reply shall remain as

12

originally set. Plaintiffs’ opposition is due by May 26, 2015, and Defendants’ reply is due by June

13

2, 2015.
4.

14

If necessary to address any of Defendants’ contentions in their reply regarding

15

whether Dynamex is the appropriate entity for the purposes of successor liability, Plaintiffs are

16

hereby granted leave to file a sur-reply of not more than five pages. Any sur-reply shall be due by

17

June 9, 2015.
5.

18

The excess pages the Court has granted the parties in the foregoing paragraphs shall

19

be used only to address the issues of whether Dynamex is the appropriate entity for the purposes of

20

successor liability and how that issue affects the successor liability analysis in this case.

21

\\\

22

\\\

23

\\\

24

\\\

25

\\\

26

\\\

27

\\\

28

\\\
2

6.

1
2

25, 2015 at 2:00 p.m.1
IT IS SO ORDERED.

3
4

The hearing on Defendants’ motion for interlocutory appeal is continued to June

Dated: May 14, 2015

5
______________________________________
JON S. TIGAR
United States District Judge

6
7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

22
23
24
25
26
1

27
28

The parties have also filed a stipulation to consolidate their June 8, 2015 case management
conference with the hearing on Defendants’ motion for interlocutory appeal. See ECF No. 163.
Because this order alters the motion hearing date, the stipulation is denied without prejudice. If
the parties wish to file a new stipulation in light of this order, they may do so.
3