Sanchez et al v. Capital Contractors Inc. et al

Filing 117

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE RELIEF. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on November 22, 2016. (mmclc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/22/2016)

1
2
3
4

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

LILLIANA SANCHEZ, ET AL.,
Plaintiffs,

8
v.

9
10

CAPITAL CONTRACTORS INC.,
Defendant.

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

Case No. 14-cv-02622-MMC
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S
MOTION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE
RELIEF
Re: Dkt. No. 114

12
13

Before the Court is defendant's Motion, filed November 14, 2016, "for

14

Administrative Relief from the Court's November 9, 2016 Order," by which order the

15

Court struck defendant's Motion to Deny Class Certification, "without prejudice to

16

defendant's moving, upon a showing of good cause, for relief from the Court's scheduling

17

order." (See Order, filed November 9, 2016.) Plaintiffs have filed opposition to the

18

instant motion. Having read and considered the parties' respective written submissions,

19

the Court rules as follows.

20

Citing Vinole v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 571 F.3d 935 (9th Cir. 2009),

21

defendant correctly observes that either a plaintiff or a defendant may "put the class

22

certification issue before the district court," see id. at 939-40; in reliance thereon,

23

defendant seeks to have its motion to deny class certification heard prior to plaintiffs'

24

motion for class certification or, alternatively, jointly with plaintiffs' motion. 1 Unlike Vinole,

25

however, in which the district court had issued a scheduling order that set a deadline to

26
27
28

1

In conformity with the Court's scheduling order, plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification on November 11, 2016, and noticed it for hearing on February 24, 2016.

1

file "pretrial motions" but provided no specific schedule with respect to the issue of class

2

certification, see id. at 938-39, 942, here, as the Court explained in its order of November

3

9, 2016, the parties jointly requested in 2014 that the issue of class certification be put

4

before the Court by way a motion filed by plaintiffs, and the Court approved such

5

schedule.

6

In moving for relief from the Court's order of November 9, 2016, defendant has

7

failed to show good cause to amend the scheduling order. There is no showing, for

8

example, nor has defendant even argued, that the legal and/or factual issues to be

9

presented are so novel or complex that defendant cannot adequately address them in its

10

opposition to plaintiffs' motion.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Accordingly, defendant's motion for relief is hereby DENIED.

12

IT IS SO ORDERED.

13
14

Dated: November 22, 2016
MAXINE M. CHESNEY
United States District Judge

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