Richardson v. Interstate Hotels & Resorts, Inc. et al

Filing 40

ORDER RE 39 UNOPPOSED EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE CLASS CERTIFICATION MOTION DEADLINE AND APPOINT INTERIM CLASS COUNSEL by Hon. William Alsup. (whalc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/2/2017)

1
2
3
4
5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
7
8
9

12
13
14
15

No. C 16-06772 WHA

Plaintiff,

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

DINA RAE RICHARDSON, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated,

v.
INTERSTATE HOTELS & RESORTS,
INC., and INTERSTATE MANAGEMENT
COMPANY, LLC,

ORDER RE UNOPPOSED EX
PARTE APPLICATION TO
CONTINUE CLASS
CERTIFICATION MOTION
DEADLINE AND APPOINT
INTERIM CLASS COUNSEL

Defendants.
/

16
17

On August 1, counsel for plaintiff in this putative class action filed a stipulated request to

18

continue the class certification motion deadline and to engage in private mediation prior to class

19

certification (Dkt. No. 35), as well as an unopposed motion for appointment of interim class

20

counsel (Dkt. No. 36). An order dated August 2 continued the class certification motion

21

deadline from August 17 to September 7 at noon but denied the motion for appointment of

22

interim class counsel “without prejudice to a renewed motion setting forth more cogent reasons

23

for why this case warrants an exception” (Dkt. No. 37). Counsel then filed an “unopposed ex

24

parte application” on August 31 requesting (1) a “brief” sixty-day continuance of the class

25

certification motion deadline and (2) appointment of interim class counsel (Dkt. No. 39).

26

With respect to the requested extension, counsel claim the current class certification

27

motion deadline on September 7 constitutes a “crisis” necessitating extraordinary relief because

28

they have not yet acquired deposition testimony “critical” to class certification. Counsel further
assert they are “without fault in creating the need for extraordinary relief” because they did not

original class certification motion deadline — when they deposed a corporate designee who “did

3

not have sufficient knowledge regarding the noticed topics” (id. at 4–7). These garden-variety

4

discovery challenges neither constitute a “crisis” nor absolve counsel of responsibility in

5

creating their current dilemma. The mere fact that counsel failed to prepare for a motion

6

deadline that had already been continued once does not entitle them to extraordinary relief. This

7

order nevertheless GRANTS a continuance of the class certification motion deadline from

8

September 7 to SEPTEMBER 14 AT NOON. No further requests for extensions will be considered.

9

With respect to the request for appointment of interim class counsel, and despite

10

recognizing that the August 2 order required “more cogent reasons for why this case warrants an

11
For the Northern District of California

figure out which witnesses they needed to depose to obtain said testimony until August 17 — the

2

United States District Court

1

exception,” counsel’s new ex parte application fails to improve upon their prior motion. Counsel

12

insist “[t]he parties have conducted diligent discovery on the merits” but their repeated requests

13

to continue the class certification motion deadline show otherwise. Counsel baldly assert that

14

“the parties are prepared to mediate this matter without discounting the putative class members’

15

claims by the risk that class certification will be denied” but this merely pays lip service to the

16

Court’s concerns without offering any meaningful assurance. Counsel mention vague and

17

generic concerns like “the risks, uncertainty, and costs associated with further litigation,” but

18

those inhere in every putative class action and justify no special treatment for this one. Counsel

19

note that defendants “seek to limit any interruptions to the hotel’s operations as a result of this

20

litigation” but fail to explain how that relates to the Court’s concerns. Finally, counsel again tout

21

their own qualifications as proposed interim class counsel. This tactic was unpersuasive on the

22

previously-rejected motion and remains unpersuasive here (id. at 7–10). The renewed request

23

for appointment of interim class counsel is DENIED.

24
25

IT IS SO ORDERED.

26
27

Dated: September 2, 2017.

WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

28
2