Mendez v. C-Two Group, Inc.

Filing 75

ORDER by Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. Granting 64 Motion to Certify Class (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/2/2015)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

JAMIE MADRIGAL MENDEZ,

Case No. 13-cv-05914-HSG

Plaintiff,
8

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S
MOTION TO CERTIFY CLASS

v.
9
10

C-TWO GROUP, INC., et al.,

Re: Dkt. No. 64

Defendants.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13

On May 28, 2015, the Court held a hearing on Plaintiff’s Motion to Certify Class (Dkt. No.

14

64). At the hearing, the Court expressed its view that the central arguments presented in

15

opposition to Plaintiff’s class certification motion actually address merits questions most

16

appropriately decided on a dispositive motion. Specifically, the Court noted that Defendants’

17

claim that Plaintiff and the other putative class members consented to receiving text messages by

18

entering their information on the Infusion Lounge website is likely subject to resolution on a class-

19

wide basis. The Court urged the parties to be prepared to frame this issue for decision as promptly

20

as possible if a class were to be certified.

21

With regard to the class certification motion, as indicated at the hearing, the Court finds

22

that Plaintiff has met her burden under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, and thus GRANTS the

23

Motion to Certify Class. The Court certifies the following class: All individuals who entered their

24

contact information online through Infusion Lounge’s website and were sent a text message from

25

SMS Short Code 99158 that referenced the Infusion Lounge from November 5, 2009 through

26

October 15, 2013. See Reply at 1 (Dkt. No. 72). The Court will issue a written order setting out

27

its analysis of the Rule 23 factors as soon as practicable.

28

Within seven days of this Order, the parties shall meet and confer and jointly file a

1

proposed case schedule. The schedule should include fact and expert discovery deadlines and a

2

dispositive motion briefing schedule, including a deadline for the motion to be heard. Based on

3

the Court’s discussion with the parties at the hearing, the Court anticipates that a dispositive

4

motion focused on this consent issue should be able to be filed within approximately two months

5

of the issuance of this order (i.e., by August 6, 2015).

6

In addition, the parties shall also submit a proposed protective order that tracks the

7

Northern District of California’s Model Stipulated Protective Order for Standard Litigation, or

8

explain the basis for any requested deviations from the Model Order, as required by this Court’s

9

May 3, 2015 Order (Dkt. No. 62).

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: 6/2/2015
______________________________________
HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.
United States District Judge

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