Elena Del Campo v. American Corrective Counseling

Filing 682

ORDER Denying Plaintiffs' Implied Motion to Bifurcate Class Certification; Directing Plaintiffs to File Supplemental Motion for Class Certification Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3) (jwlc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/19/2008)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Elena del Campo, et al., v. Plaintiffs, IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION NO. C 01-21151 JW ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS' IMPLIED MOTION TO BIFURCATE CLASS CERTIFICATION; DIRECTING PLAINTIFFS TO FILE SUPPLEMENTAL MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION UNDER FED. R. CIV. P. 23(b)(3) /

United United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

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

American Corrective Counseling Services, Inc, et al., Defendants.

On September 15, 2008, the Court held a hearing on Plaintiffs' Amended Motion for Class Certification. The Court raised an issue with respect to the absence of a Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3) damages class in Plaintiffs' Motion. Plaintiffs contend that the reason Plaintiffs did not move to certify a damages class was because there is a possibility that Defendants may not be able to pay any potential judgment. The Court construed Plaintiffs' statement as an implied motion to bifurcate class certification. The Court took the matter under submission. Upon consideration, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs' implied motion to bifurcate class certification between liability, and injunctive and declaratory relief under Rule 23(b)(2) and damages under Rule 23(b)(3). Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2-3). The Court finds Plaintiffs' contention regarding whether Defendants may or may not be able to pay too speculative and insufficient to certify the class at two separate periods; judicial economy weighs in favor of completing the certification all at once rather than the piecemeal approach proposed by Plaintiffs.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Thus, in light of the fact that Plaintiffs have not moved for class certification under Rule 23(b)(3), the Court gives Plaintiffs an opportunity to file a Supplemental Motion for Class Certification, in which Plaintiffs may move to certify a Rule 23(b)(3) damages class to be considered alongside Plaintiffs' pending Motion for class certification under Rule 23(b)(2). Accordingly, the Court sets an expedited briefing schedule for the issue of Plaintiffs' putative 23(b)(3) damages class as follows: (1) On or before September 26, 2008, Plaintiffs shall file and serve their Supplemental Motion for Class Certification to include, if any, a damages class under Rule 23(b)(3); (2) Defendants' Opposition, if any, shall be filed and served on or before October 3, 2008; (3) Plaintiffs' Reply, if any, shall be filed and served on or before October 8, 2008.

United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

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

The Court will take the matter under submission without oral argument.

Dated: September 19, 2008

JAMES WARE United States District Judge

2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT COPIES OF THIS ORDER HAVE BEEN DELIVERED TO: Charles D. Jenkins [e-mail] Charles Edward Perkins [e-mail] Dan Day Kim [e-mail] David L. Hartsell [e-mail] Deepak Gupta [e-mail] Eric Neil Landau [e-mail] Lester A. Perry [e-mail] Martha A. Boersch [e-mail] Natalie P. Vance [e-mail] O. Randolph Bragg [e-mail] Paul Arons [e-mail] Ronald Wilcox [e-mail] Susan L. Germaise [e-mail] Timothy P. Irving [e-mail] Dated: September 19, 2008 Richard W. Wieking, Clerk By: /s/ JW Chambers Elizabeth Garcia Courtroom Deputy

United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

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