KAG West, LLC et al v. Malone

Filing 39

ORDER by Hon. Thelton E. Henderson denying 35 Motion to Shorten Time. (tehlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/12/2016).

Download PDF
1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 4 KAG WEST, LLC, et al., Plaintiffs, 5 6 7 8 v. PATRICK MALONE, Defendant. Case No. 15-cv-03827-TEH ORDER DENYING PETITIONERS’ MOTION TO SHORTEN TIME ON PETITIONERS’ MOTION TO ENJOIN DUPLICATIVE CLAIMS 9 Before the Court is Petitioners KAG West LLC and the Kenan Advantage Group’s 11 United States District Court Northern District of California 10 (“Petitioners”) Motion to Shorten Time, by which Petitioners seek an order advancing the 12 hearing date and reply deadline on their pending Motion to Enjoin. Docket Nos. 35, 34. 13 Having carefully considered the written arguments in support of shortening time, including 14 Petitioners’ Notice of Duplicative Action (Docket No. 38) and Respondent Patrick 15 Malone’s (“Respondent”) Statement of Non-Opposition (Docket No. 36), the Court now 16 DENIES Petitioners’ Motion to Shorten Time for the reasons discussed below. 17 Petitioners’ Motion to Enjoin was filed on April 29, 2016; therefore, the earliest day 18 on which the Motion could be heard is June 6, 2016, see Civil L.R. 7-2(a), unless 19 Petitioners demonstrate that it should be heard on shortened time, see Civil L.R. 6-3. A 20 party seeking to have a motion heard on shortened time must submit a declaration that, 21 inter alia, “[i]dentifies the substantial harm or prejudice that would occur if the Court did 22 not change the time.” See Civil L.R. 6-3(a)(3). Petitioners seek to have the Motion to 23 Enjoin heard on May 23, 2016. 24 The Motion to Shorten Time is supported by the Declaration of Victoria R. 25 Carradero (Docket No. 35-1), which the Court finds is insufficient for the purposes of 26 demonstrating that the Motion to Enjoin should be heard on shortened time. Respondent’s 27 counsel informed Petitioners of his intent to file a state court Private Attorney General Act 28 (“PAGA”) claim on behalf of James Patrick Souza. According to Petitioners, 1 Respondent’s counsel refused to consolidate Mr. Souza’s claim with Respondent’s claim 2 in the instant action, which is pending in arbitration and is scheduled for a hearing on the 3 issue of clause construction on June 29, 2016. The threat of Mr. Souza’s claim being filed 4 prompted Petitioners to file the Motion to Enjoin in this Court. 5 6 7 8 9 According to Petitioners: [I]f the threatened PAGA suit is filed and personally served this week, as Respondent’s Counsel’s latest communication contemplates, and the motion to enjoin is not heard on shortened time, the deadline for Petitioners to respond will be prior to the current June 6, 2016 hearing date on the underlying motion, and the current June 29, 2016 hearing date on the Clause Construction issue. Carradero Decl. ¶ 6 (emphasis in original). Respondent’s counsel did in fact file Mr. 11 United States District Court Northern District of California 10 Souza’s claim in state court on May 6, 2016, as noted by Petitioners’ Notice of Duplicative 12 Action. Petitioners also contend that Respondent’s counsel intends to serve discovery 13 promptly in the state court action; thus, “Petitioners’ deadline to respond to the discovery 14 may run prior to this Court issuing a ruling on the underlying motion and will run prior to 15 the arbitrator hearing and issuing a ruling on the Clause Construction issue.” Carradero 16 Decl. ¶ 7 (emphasis in original). 17 The Court is not persuaded by Petitioners’ argument that substantial harm will 18 result from “having to relitigate the matters decided by this Court” or that “the time and 19 resources of all parties and the courts will be substantially wasted on an entirely 20 duplicative action.” Carradero Decl. ¶ 8. The emails between Petitioners’ and 21 Respondent’s counsel demonstrate that there is a dispute as to whether Souza’s claim is 22 actually duplicative; thus, this argument is appropriate for the underlying Motion to 23 Enjoin, not as a basis for shortening time. See Ex. A to Carradero Decl. 24 The Court further finds that, considering the early stage of Mr. Souza’s action, the 25 amount of discovery in which Petitioners would have to engage prior to the June 6, 2016 26 hearing does not amount to substantial injury to warrant the Court shortening time and thus 27 delaying other pending matters. See Belinda K. v. Baldovinos, No. 10-CV-2507-PSG, 28 2011 WL 335315, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 1, 2011). 2 1 Accordingly, the Court finds that Petitioners have not met their burden of 2 demonstrating that they will suffer substantial harm or prejudice by waiting two weeks 3 until the originally noticed hearing date. Petitioners’ Motion to Shorten Time is hereby 4 DENIED. The briefing schedule and hearing date for Petitioners’ Motion to Enjoin will 5 remain as scheduled.1 6 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 8 9 Dated: 05/12/16 10 _____________________________________ THELTON E. HENDERSON United States District Judge United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 26 27 28 In Respondent’s Statement of Non-Opposition to Petitioner’s Motion to Shorten Time, Respondent’s counsel indicated that he has a scheduling conflict on June 6, 2016. Non-Opp. St. at 2. Respondent’s counsel also indicated that he would be amenable to delaying the service of discovery, and granting an extension for Petitioners’ answer, in the state court action. Id. The Court encourages the parties to meet and confer on these issues, and stipulate to a later hearing date if necessary. 3

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?