McClellan et al v. SFN Group, Inc. et al

Filing 37

ORDER by Judge ARMSTRONG granting in part 36 Motion for Leave to File (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/27/2011)

1
2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

3

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

4

OAKLAND DIVISION

5
6 KIMBERLY MCCLELLAN and LAURA

LOVELESS, individually and on behalf of all
7 others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,

8
9

Case No: C 10-5972 SBA
ORDER GRANTING IN PART
JOINT REQUEST TO MODIFY
CASE MANAGEMENT
SCHEDULING ORDER

vs.
Dkt. 32

10 SFN GROUP, INC., SFN PROFESSIONAL

SERVICES, LLC, and SPHERION

11 ATLANTIC ENTERPRISES, LLC, all doing

business as SPHERION, and SPHERION, a

12 business form unknown, and DOES 1 through
13

100, inclusive,
Defendants.

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

The parties are presently before the Court on a Joint Motion for Leave to File
Motion for Reconsideration of Order Denying Request to Modify Scheduling Order. Dkt.
36. For the reasons that follow, the motion is GRANTED IN PART.
On November 29, 2011, the parties submitted a stipulation to (1) continue the
deadline to complete mediation from January 15, 2012 to April 2, 2012, and (2) continue
the hearing date on Plaintiffs’ class certification motion from March 27, 2012 to September
25, 2012. Dkt. 34. In their stipulation, the parties stated that due to the “recent[]” purchase
of SFN Group “by another company,” SFN Group’s “corporate and reporting structure …
is in the process of being determined in light of this purchase, and will be resolved by early
2012.” Id.
On December 6, 2011, the Court denied the parties’ request. Dkt. 35. Aside from
the parties’ failure to comply with the procedural requirements of Local Rule 6-2, the Court
found that the parties failed to demonstrate “good cause” for modifying the Court’s pretrial

1

scheduling order. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). Among other things, the Court found that

2

the parties had failed to recite the specific reasons that the proposed extensions were

3

necessary, including an explanation of how the change in “reporting structure” as to one of

4

the Defendants necessarily precluded either the mediation or class certification motion from

5

proceeding in January 2012, as scheduled. In addition, the Court pointed out that the

6

parties have had ample opportunity to prepare for the mediation and for class certification,

7

given that the case has been pending since November 24, 2010.

8

In their present motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration, the parties

9

contend that after they submitted their previous stipulation, they learned of new information

10

bearing upon their request for a continuance. Specifically, the parties claim that Randstad

11

Holding N.V. (“Ranstad”) recently purchased Defendant SFN Group, Inc (aka “Spherion”),

12

and that Randstad is in the process of reorganizing Spherion’s in-house legal department.

13

The reorganization supposedly will not be completed until sometime in January 2012, and

14

that, in the interim, Ranstad has reduced or eliminated Spherion’s in-house legal counsel’s

15

settlement authority. See Oppenheer Decl. ¶¶ 4-6. As a result of Ranstad’s actions,

16

Spherion claims that it will not be in a position to participate in the mediation scheduled for

17

January 12, 2012.

18

The Court is not persuaded by the parties’ proffer in support of their motion for

19

leave to file a motion for reconsideration. The claimed inability of Spherion to participate

20

in the mediation on January 12, 2012 is not due to any unforeseen event beyond the control

21

of the parties. To the contrary, it is a direct result of Spherion’s new owner’s decision to

22

reorganize the company’s in-house legal department and strip them of their authority to

23

resolve pending lawsuits. Notably, such decision was made after the Court had already

24

granted the parties’ first request to extend the deadline for mediation to January 15, 2012

25

based on the then recent purchase of Spherion by Ranstad. Dkt. 32, 33. Moreover, the

26

“new” information provided by the parties does not address the proposed continuance of

27

the hearing on Plaintiff’s anticipated motion for class certification.

28
-2-

1

The above notwithstanding, the Court will grant the parties a brief extension of the

2

deadline to complete mediation. Spherion states that the Ranstad’s reorganization of its in-

3

house legal department should be completed by January 1, 2012. Therefore, a continuance

4

of the deadline to complete mediation to February 15, 2012 should afford Spherion

5

sufficient time to prepare for and participate in mediation. Accordingly,

6

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

7

1.

The parties Joint Motion for Leave to File Motion for Reconsideration of

8

Order Denying Request to Modify Scheduling Order is GRANTED IN PART. The Court

9

reconsiders its Order of December 6, 2011, as set forth below.

10
11
12
13

2.

The deadline to complete mediation is CONTINUED from January 15, 2012

to February 15, 2012.
3.

The following briefing schedule shall apply to any motion for class

certification, motion to decertify and/or motion to strike:

14

a.

Motion due by April 17, 2012;

15

b.

Opposition due by May 8, 2012;

16

c.

Reply due by May 15, 2012.

17

Absent prior leave of court, the moving and opposition papers shall not exceed fifteen (15)

18

pages in length and any reply shall not exceed ten (10) pages in length.

19

4.

The hearing on the above matter(s) shall take place on June 12, 2012 at

20

1:00 p.m. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 78(b) and Civil Local Rule 7-1(b),

21

the Court, in its discretion, may resolve the motion(s) without oral argument. The parties

22

are advised to check the Court’s website to determine whether a court appearance is

23

required.

24

5.

The parties shall appear for a telephonic Case Management Conference on

25

July 11, 2012 at 2:30 p.m. Prior to the date scheduled for the conference, the parties shall

26

meet and confer and prepare a joint Case Management Conference Statement which

27

complies with the Standing Order for All Judges of the Northern District of California and

28

the Standing Orders of this Court. Plaintiffs shall assume responsibility for filing the joint
-3-

1

statement no less than seven (7) days prior to the conference date. Plaintiffs’ counsel is to

2

set up the conference call with all the parties on the line and call chambers at (510) 637-

3

3559. NO PARTY SHALL CONTACT CHAMBERS DIRECTLY WITHOUT PRIOR

4

AUTHORIZATION OF THE COURT.

5
6

6.

The Court will not consider any further requests to modify the deadlines to

complete mediation or for briefing on the motion for class certification.

7

7.

8

IT IS SO ORDERED.

9

This Order terminates Docket 36.

Dated: December 27, 2011

______________________________
SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG
United States District Judge

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-4-