Burden v. Selectquote Insurance Services

Filing 50

ORDER by Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong GRANTING 38 Motion to Reset Hearing Date for Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiff's Opposition due 08/02/11; Defendant's Reply due 08/16/11. Signed by Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong, on 07/19/11 (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/19/2011) Modified on 7/20/2011 (jlm, COURT STAFF).

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

OAKLAND DIVISION

11 CHARLES BURDEN, individually and on

Case No: C 10-5966 SBA

behalf of other persons similarly situated,
12

Plaintiff,
13

vs.
14

SELECTQUOTE INSURANCES
15 SERVICES, a California corporation; and

DOES 1 through 10,

ORDER GRANTING
DEFENDANT’S
ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO
RE-SET HEARINGS ON
DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND
PLAINTIFF’ MOTION FOR CLASS
CERTIFICATION

16

Defendants.

Docket 38

17
18
19

Plaintiff Charles Burden (“Burden” or “Plaintiff”) brings the instant putative wage

20

and hour class action, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, against

21

Defendant SelectQuote Insurance Services (“SelectQuote” or “Defendant”) based its

22

alleged failure to pay overtime to its insurance agents. The Complaint alleges violations of

23

the California Labor Code and the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), 29 U.S.C. § 207.

24

On May 25, 2011, Burden filed a Motion for Class Certification. Dkt. 28. Shortly

25

thereafter, on May 31, 2011, SelectQuote filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. Dkt. 34.

26

Due to the limited space on the Court’s law and motion calendar, however, Burden’s

27

motion is scheduled for hearing on July 27, 2011, while SelectQuote’s motion is set for

28

September 27, 2011.

1

SelectQuote has now filed an Administrative Motion to Re-Set Hearings on

2

Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment and Plaintiff’s Motion for Class Certification,

3

in which it seeks to have its motion heard prior to Plaintiff’s motion. The Ninth Circuit has

4

recognized that “[u]nder the proper circumstances—where it is more practicable to do so

5

and where the parties will not suffer significant prejudice—the district court has discretion

6

to rule on a motion for summary judgment before it decides the certification issue.” Wright

7

v. Schock, 742 F.2d 541, 543-44 (9th Cir. 1984). In exercising its discretion, the court

8

should consider whether “resolution of a motion for summary judgment seems likely to

9

protect both the parties and the court from needless and costly further litigation.” Id. at

10
11

544.
The Court finds that proper circumstances are presented that militate in favor of

12

adjudicating SelectQuote’s summary judgment motion first. The gravamen of

13

SelectQuote’s motion is that Burden was properly classified as an exempt employee under

14

California law. If this is correct, all of Burden’s claims fail and his motion for class

15

certification will become moot. Notably, Burden has conceded that “there are no material

16

disputes of fact in this case,” and that “this Court can decide on a motion for summary

17

judgment, as a matter of law, whether or not insurance agents were [properly classified as]

18

exempt.” Pl.’s Mot. for Class Cert. at 7:22-27, Dkt. 28. Burden’s acknowledgement that

19

Defendant’s summary judgment motion presents only questions of law further supports the

20

Court’s conclusion that it will be more practicable and efficient to resolve SelectQuote’s

21

motion prior to reviewing Burden’s class certification motion.

22

Burden asserts that adjudicating SelectQuote’s summary judgment motion first will

23

cause him prejudice, ostensibly because it rewards SelectQuote’s “disingenuous tactics.”

24

Pl.’s Opp’n at 2, Dkt. 40. Burden surmises that SelectQuote waited to file the instant

25

motion until after he filed his motion so that it “could gain itself more time to prepare its

26

opposition to Plaintiff’s motion for class certification.” Id. However, it is unclear how

27

SelectQuote’s alleged “tactics” would result in “more time” to oppose Burden’s class

28

certification motion, given that the briefing schedule on the motion for class certification
-2-

1

had previously been set by the Court. Dkt. 27. Irrespective of any tactical motives

2

regarding the timing of the instant request, the Court finds that the interests of justice and

3

judicial efficiency favor consideration of SelectQuote’s summary judgment motion prior to

4

Burden’s class certification motion, and that adjudication of the pending motions in that

5

sequence will not result in significant prejudice to either party. Accordingly,

6

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

7

1.

Defendant’s Administrative Motion to Re-Set Hearings on Defendant’s

8

Motion for Summary Judgment and Plaintiff’s Motion for Class Certification (Dkt. 38) is

9

GRANTED.

10

2.

Plaintiff’s Motion for Class Certification (Dkt. 28) shall be held in

11

ABEYANCE pending adjudication of Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt.

12

34), which shall be heard, as scheduled, on September 27, 2011.

13

3.

To expedite matters, Plaintiff shall file his opposition to Defendant’s Motion

14

for Summary Judgment by no later than August 2, 2011, and Defendant shall file its reply

15

by August 16, 2011. The Court may adjudicate the motion without oral argument. Fed. R.

16

Civ. P. 78(b), Civ. L.R. 7-1(b). The parties are advised to consult the Court’s website to

17

determine whether an appearance on the motion is necessary.

18

4.

In the event the Court denies or denies in part Defendant’s Motion for

19

Summary Judgment, the Court will reschedule the hearing on Plaintiff’s Motion for Class

20

Certification.

21

5.

22

IT IS SO ORDERED.

23

This Order terminates Docket 38.

Dated: July 19, 2011

_______________________________
SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG
United States District Judge

24
25
26
27
28
-3-