Mendoza v. UnitedHealth Group Incorporated et al
Filing
14
ORDER by Judge Hamilton terminating 7 Motion to Certify Class; denying 11 Stipulation (pjhlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/8/2013)
1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7
8
9
SUZAN MENDOZA,
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
Plaintiff,
v.
12
ORDER
UNITEDHEALTH GROUP, INC., et al.,
13
No. C 13-1553 PJH
Defendants.
_______________________________/
14
15
Plaintiff Suzan Mendoza filed the above-entitled proposed class action on April 5,
16
2013. On April 23, 2013, plaintiff filed a motion for class certification. Plaintiff did not notice
17
a hearing date in the motion, but in e-filing the motion, plaintiff’s counsel did set the motion
18
for hearing on June 14, 2013. Thus, under Civil Local Rule 7-3 (and as reflected on the
19
court’s docket), the defendants’ opposition was due on May 7, 2013, and plaintiff’s reply
20
was due on May 14, 2013.
21
Plaintiff also requested that the court “enter and continue the instant motion until
22
after the completion of discovery on class-wide issues, at which time [p]laintiff will submit a
23
fulsome memorandum of points and authorities in support of class certification.” She
24
asserted that she had filed the motion at the outset of the litigation “to prevent [d]efendants
25
from attempting a so-called ‘buy off’ to moot his [sic] representative claims (i.e., tendering
26
to him [sic] the full amount of his [sic] individual damages alleged in the Complaint).”
27
Plaintiff argued that this procedure was appropriate under the Seventh Circuit’s decision in
28
Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891, 896 (7th Cir. 2011).
1
On May 6, 2013, the parties filed a stipulation requesting that the briefing on the
2
class certification motion be deferred, and that the motion be “entered and continued until
3
after discovery, or taken off calendar without prejudice.” On May 7, 2013, the case was
4
reassigned to the undersigned district judge.
5
In Damasco, the Seventh Circuit acknowledged that its ruling on this issue was
6
somewhat at odds with rulings on the same issue by the other circuits, including the Ninth
7
Circuit. Accordingly, in the absence of any binding authority from the Ninth Circuit, and in
8
particular, in light of the ruling in Pitts v. Terrible Herbst, Inc., 653 F.3d 1081, 1084, 1091-
9
92 (9th Cir. 2011), the court finds that the request to “enter and continue” the motion for
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
class certification must be DENIED.
The motion for class certification is hereby terminated as premature. The case
12
schedule, including the schedule for discovery and motion practice, will be discussed and
13
set at the initial case management conference (which will be set in due course by separate
14
notice from the court).
15
16
IT IS SO ORDERED.
17
Dated: May 8, 2013
______________________________
PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON
United States District Judge
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
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?