Saechao v. Landry's, Inc., et al

Filing 80

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S REQUEST TO CONTINUE HEARING ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION by Hon. William Alsup denying 75 Motion to Continue.(whalc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/10/2016)

1
2
3
4

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7

MOUANG SAECHO, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated,

8
9

Plaintiff,
v.

12

LANDRY’S INC, a Delaware corporation,
and McCORMICK & SCHMICK
RESTAURANT CORP., a Delaware
corporation,

13

Defendants.

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

No. C 15-00815 WHA

ORDER DENYING
DEFENDANT’S REQUEST
TO CONTINUE HEARING ON
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
CLASS CERTIFICATION
/

14
Defendant McCormick & Schmick Restaurant Corp. has filed a motion for

15
16

administrative relief seeking to continue the hearing on plaintiff’s motion for class certification,

17

which the Court continued to March 10, because Attorney Nicholas Murray, the lead associate

18

assigned to this case, will be on vacation that week. McCormick & Schmick does not state that

19

Attorney Murray will conduct the oral argument on its behalf and offers only the conclusory

20

statement that it will be prejudiced if Attorney Murray cannot attend the hearing. Plaintiff

21

opposes McCormick & Schmick’s motion because further continuing the resolution of this

22

motion (for which the deadline has already been extended due to McCormick & Schmick’s

23

discovery delays) will not allow enough time for class notice, if necessary, before any

24

dispositive motions will be heard.
No good cause shown, McCormick & Schmick’s request for a continuance is hereby

25
26

DENIED. All deadlines remain in place.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

27
28
Dated:

February 10, 2016.

WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE