Moeller et al v. Taco Bell Corp.

Filing 654

ORDER re 648 MOTION Briefing Schedule Plaintiffs' Administrative Motion for Briefing Schedule filed by Edward Muegge, Francie E. Moeller, Katherine Corbett, Craig Thomas Yates. Signed by Judge Hamilton on 11/28/2011. (pjhlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/28/2011)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5
6
7

FRANCIE E. MOELLER, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

8
9

v.

ORDER

TACO BELL CORP.,

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

No. C 02-5849 PJH

Defendant.
_______________________________/

12
13

On September 21, 2011, the court issued an order granting plaintiffs’ motion for a

14

continuance of the December 12, 2011 damages trial date, stating that a new trial date

15

would be set after the ruling on the parties’ motions regarding class certification issues.

16

The order added that once the court had issued the findings regarding the trial as to the

17

exemplar store, “the parties can submit a stipulation re scheduling.”

18

The findings were issued on October 5, 2011. On November 16, 2011, plaintiffs filed

19

an administrative motion seeking an order setting a briefing schedule. Plaintiffs claim they

20

have attempted to meet and confer with Taco Bell regarding scheduling, but that Taco Bell

21

refuses to cooperate. Plaintiffs also allude to certain concerns regarding discovery issues.

22

In its response, Taco Bell accuses plaintiffs of attempting an “end-run” around

23

Magistrate Judge Cousins’ November 9, 2011 order concerning certain discovery motions,

24

claiming that plaintiffs are seeking to bring a discovery dispute before this court in the guise

25

of a request for a briefing schedule.

26

The court is distressed to learn that its confidence in the parties’ ability to settle on a

27

briefing schedule was so misplaced. At present, there are no deadlines set in this case –

28

no discovery cut-off date, no motion briefing or hearing deadlines, no trial date. The parties

1

are also engaged in class-related discovery, and in damages-related discovery. It appears

2

that notwithstanding any dates the court might set, the parties’ discovery difficulties will take

3

precedence, and the dates will require further revision.

4

Accordingly, because of the seeming impossibility of separating the discovery issues

5

from the other scheduling issues, the court hereby refers this case to Magistrate Judge

6

Cousins to persuade the parties, by any means necessary, to come to an agreement

7

regarding discovery scheduling and limits. Whether this will take the form of holding a

8

hearing, or of confining the parties in a room until they come to an agreement, or of taking

9

some other approach, is up to the Magistrate Judge.
In addition, Taco Bell has filed a motion to decertify the class, and plaintiffs have

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

filed a motion to amend the class definition and have also filed an opposition to Taco Bell’s

12

motion. The parties need to schedule dates for Taco Bell’s opposition to plaintiffs’ motion,

13

and for plaintiffs’ reply to Taco Bell’s opposition, and also for Taco Bell’s reply to plaintiffs’

14

opposition to Taco Bell’s motion.1 Accordingly, Magistrate Judge Cousins shall also

15

persuade the parties to come to an agreement regarding the above-described scheduling.

16
17

IT IS SO ORDERED.

18

Dated: November 28, 2011
______________________________
PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON
United States District Judge

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1

The court has already advised that it will set the hearing date once the motions are
fully briefed.
2