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).
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?