Lewis et al v. Silvertree Mohave Homeowners' Association, Inc., et al

Filing 72

ORDER DENYING AS MOOT MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION, SETTING NEW SCHEDULE FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION BRIEFING, AND AWARDING ATTORNEY'S FEES AND COSTS Motions due by 5/18/2017. Motion Hearing set for 6/22/2017 08:00 AM in Courtroom 8, 19th Floor, San Francisco before Hon. William Alsup.. Signed by Judge Alsup on 4/26/17. (whalc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/26/2017)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
DOMENICA LEWIS, et al.,

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13
14
15

No. C 16-03581 WHA

Plaintiffs,
v.
SILVERTREE MOHAVE HOMEOWNERS’
ASSOCIATION, et al.,
Defendants.
/

ORDER DENYING AS MOOT
MOTION FOR CLASS
CERTIFICATION, SETTING
NEW SCHEDULE FOR CLASS
CERTIFICATION BRIEFING,
AND AWARDING
ATTORNEY’S FEES AND
COSTS

16
17

In November 2016, plaintiffs served discovery requests seeking information concerning

18

the identities of residents at the condominium complex at issue herein and information

19

disseminated to residents regarding the “no sports play” rules challenged in this action.

20

Defendants produced documents reflecting this information as of 2016, but averred no other

21

information was available. This statement later proved false.

22

At a settlement conference in April, after plaintiffs filed their motion for class

23

certification (interim class counsel had already been appointed for the purpose of settlement

24

negotiations), it was revealed that other documents reflecting information from earlier years

25

existed. In the ensuing weeks, defense counsel produced more than five thousand responsive

26

documents that plaintiffs’ counsel had previously been informed did not exist, and which may

27

bear on the motion for class certification.

28

Plaintiffs now ask to be allowed to refile their motion, accounting for new evidence, or
to allow them to file reply declarations addressing the new evidence and raise new arguments.

1

They further ask that defendants be precluded from opposing class certification or that they be

2

precluded from making certain arguments. Plaintiffs also seek their reasonable attorney’s fees

3

and costs.

4

Defendants admit error, and state the incomplete production resulted from

5

miscommunication between two of defendants’ offices. They do not oppose plaintiffs’ request

6

to file a new motion for class certification, but they do oppose the request to limit their response

7

to the motion.

8

Plainly, plaintiffs deserve a full opportunity to make their case for class certification.

9

The currently-pending motion is DENIED AS MOOT. A new motion is due by MAY 11, to be
noticed on the normal 35-day calendar.

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

This order does not find it appropriate to limit defendants in their ability to oppose class

12

certification; however, this order leaves open the possibility that preclusion or adverse

13

inferences may be warranted once the motion is fully briefed, upon a further showing by

14

plaintiffs that defendants’ delay in producing responsive discovery was prejudicial. Restricting

15

defendants’ ability to oppose the motion is particularly inappropriate inasmuch as the

16

requirements of Rule 23 do not only protect defendants from inappropriate classwide litigation

17

but also protect absent class members by ensuring their case is appropriate for adjudication by a

18

representative.

19

Defendants shall also pay plaintiffs’ reasonable attorney’s fees and costs as a result of

20

this snafu, as follows: By MAY 18, plaintiffs’ counsel shall file a sworn declaration setting forth

21

the reasonable attorney’s fees (with detailed description of the hours worked and the applicable

22

rate) and costs incurred in bringing the instant motion, refiling their motion for class

23

certification, and in preparing the declaration setting forth these fees and costs. Defendants

24

shall pay that amount by MAY 25 AT NOON.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

25
26
27

Dated:

April 26, 2017.

WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

28
2