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
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?