Palana v. Mission Bay Inc. et al

Filing 136

ORDER RE: DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS AND PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO APPOINT CLASS COUNSEL 116 117 .(Illston, Susan) (Filed on 4/1/2016)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

HORACIO DE VEYRA PALANA, et al.,

Case No. 13-cv-05235-SI

Plaintiffs,
8
v.
9
10

MISSION BAY INC., et al.,
Defendants.

Re: Dkt. Nos. 116, 117

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

ORDER RE: DEFENDANTS' MOTION
TO DISMISS AND PLAINTIFFS'
MOTION TO APPOINT CLASS
COUNSEL

12
13

Pending before the Court are two motions: defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiffs

14

Conchito Cabiles and Felix Cadenas, Dkt. No. 116, and plaintiffs’ motion to amend the class

15

certification order to appoint class counsel, Dkt. No. 117. This matter came on for hearing on

16

Friday, March 25, 2016. Counsel for defendants did not appear, but at the hearing counsel for

17

plaintiffs informed the Court that the case settled on March 24, following a settlement conference

18

with Magistrate Judge Laporte. See Docket Nos. 133, 134. As part of the settlement, the parties

19

agreed that defendants’ motion to dismiss would be withdrawn as to plaintiff Cadenas and granted

20

as to Cabiles. The Court therefore GRANTS the motion to dismiss the claims of plaintiff Cabiles

21

from the case.

22

Regarding the plaintiffs’ motion to add the law firm of Kletter & Nguyen Law LLP as

23

class counsel, the Court indicated at the hearing that it would grant this motion.1

24

considered the declaration of Cary Kletter, the Court finds Kletter & Nguyen Law LLP adequately

Having

25
1

26
27
28

In their motion, plaintiffs erroneously state that “the class certification order does not
currently appoint any class counsel.” Dkt. No. 117 at 3. On July 7, 2015, the Court appointed
Justice at Work Law Group as class counsel when it granted plaintiffs’ motion for class
certification. Dtk. No. 81 at 8. Because Justice at Work Law Group has already been appointed
class counsel, the Court now considers only whether to add Kletter & Nguyen Law LLP.
Defendants do not oppose plaintiffs’ motion. Dkt. No. 127.

1

suited to represent the interests of the putative class under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

2

23(g)(1) based on the work counsel has done in identifying and investigating plaintiffs’ claims;

3

counsel’s experience in handling class action and other litigation in the area of employment wage

4

and hour matters; counsel’s knowledge of the applicable law; and the time and resources counsel

5

has spent and commits to spend to represent the class in this case. See Dkt. No. 118. The Court

6

therefore GRANTS plaintiffs’ motion to add Kletter & Nguyen Law LLP as class counsel.

7

This resolves Docket Nos. 116 and 117.

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: April 1, 2016
______________________________________
SUSAN ILLSTON
United States District Judge

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2