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