Campbell v. Feld Entertainment, Inc et al

Filing 39

ORDER by Judge Lucy H. Koh granting 32 Motion to Relate Case; granting 33 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply re 33 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 26 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint for Damages and Injunctive Relief and/or in the Alternative, Motion to Strike Portions of Plaintiff's First Amended C ; denying 8 Motion to Transfer Case Responses due by 3/1/2013. Replies due by 3/8/2013. (lhklc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/1/2013)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9

SAN JOSE DIVISION

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19

SHANNON CAMPBELL,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
v.
)
)
FELD ENTERTAINMENT, INC., d/b/a
)
RINGLING BROS. AND BARNUM &
)
BAILEY CIRCUS, RINGLING BROS. CIRCUS)
GENERAL MANAGER JAMES DENNIS,
)
RINGLING BROS. CIRCUS OPERATIONS
)
MANAGER MATTHEW GILLET, and Does 1 )
through 10,
)
)
Defendants.
)
)

Case No.: 12-CV-04233-LHK
ORDER RE MOTION TO TRANSFER;
MOTION TO RELATE; AND MOTION
FOR EXTENSION OF TIME

Currently before the Court are three motions: Plaintiff Shannon Campbell’s Motion to

20

Transfer, ECF No. 8; Plaintiff’s Motion to Consider Whether Cases Should be Related Pursuant to

21

Civil Local Rule 7-11, ECF No. 32; and Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension of Time to File

22

Response/Reply to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, ECF 33. For the reasons stated herein,

23

Plaintiff’s motions are GRANTED in part, and DENIED in part.

24

First, the Court finds that Plaintiff has not established good cause to transfer this case to the

25

Northern District of California’s Oakland or San Francisco divisions. Plaintiff designated her

26

Complaint for the San Jose Division, see ECF No. 1, and also filed her Amended Complaint in the

27

San Jose Division, see ECF No. 11. In addition, any enhanced convenience to Plaintiff and her

28

counsel based on transferring this case to San Francisco or Oakland will be offset by the
1
Case No.: 12-CV-04233-LHK
ORDER RE MOTION TO TRANSFER; MOTION TO RELATE; AND MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME

1

inconvenience caused to Defendants’ counsel. Ultimately, the Court is not persuaded by Plaintiff’s

2

arguments regarding why the interests of justice will be served by transferring this case.

3

Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion to Transfer to Oakland or San Francisco

4

Division. See ECF No. 8.
Second, Plaintiff has filed a Motion to Consider Whether Cases Should be Related Pursuant

6

to Civil Local Rule 7-11. ECF No. 32. According to Civil Local Rule 3-12, “[a]n action is related

7

to another when: (1) The actions concern substantially the same parties, property, transaction or

8

event; and (2) It appears likely that there will be an unduly burdensome duplication of labor and

9

expense or conflicting results if the cases are conducted before different Judges.” N.D. Cal. Local

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

5

R. 3-12. Plaintiff asserts that this case is related to Ennis v. Feld Entertainment, Inc., Case No. 13-

11

CV-00233-DMR, because “Ennis involves the exact same underlying events, identical defendants,

12

the identical or virtually identical allegations and causes of action, and the witnesses.” ECF No.

13

32, at 1. Given the similarities between these cases, the Court agrees that there will be “unduly

14

burdensome duplication of labor and expense and there will be a risk of conflicting results if Ennis

15

is not related to this case.” Id. Therefore, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion to relate this case

16

to that of Ennis v. Feld Entertainment, Inc. However, because this case, Campbell v. Feld

17

Entertainment, Inc., was filed on August 10, 2012, and Ennis v. Feld Entertainment, Inc., was only

18

filed on January 17, 2013, the Clerk shall reassign Ennis v. Feld Entertainment, Inc., to the

19

undersigned pursuant to Civil Local Rule 3-12(f). See N.D. Cal. Local R. 3-12(f) (“Upon a motion

20

by a party or a referral by another Judge . . . the Judge in this District who is assigned to the

21

earliest-filed case will decide if the cases are or are not related.”) (emphasis added).

22

Third, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Enlarge Time to File Plaintiff’s Response to Defendants’

23

Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint. ECF No. 33. Plaintiff’s deadline to file

24

the response to Defendant’s motion to dismiss was due on January 30, 2013. However, Plaintiff’s

25

counsel is currently scheduled to begin trial in the case of Cuviello v. Feld Entertainment, Inc.,

26

Case No. 11-5539, on February 5, 2013, before the Honorable Judge Paul S. Grewal. Although

27

Cuviello v. Feld Entertainment, Inc., was originally scheduled to commence on February 19, 2013,

28

Judge Grewal recently advanced the trial date by two weeks in order to accommodate the court’s
2
Case No.: 12-CV-04233-LHK
ORDER RE MOTION TO TRANSFER; MOTION TO RELATE; AND MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME

1

schedule. See ECF No. 33, at 1. Moreover, the hearing on Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss

2

Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint in this case, ECF No. 26, is not scheduled until the end of

3

May. Accordingly, affording Plaintiff an extension of time to file a response by 30 days will

4

neither disrupt this Court’s schedule nor result in prejudice to Defendants. Plaintiff has thus

5

established good cause to extend the deadline for filing Plaintiff’s Response to Defendant’s Motion

6

to Dismiss Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint for 30 days to Friday, March 1, 2013, and to

7

correspondingly extend the time for Defendants to file their optional reply to Friday, March 8,

8

2013. Therefore, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion to Enlarge Time.

9

Finally, the case management conference and hearing on Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint, which were scheduled for May 30, 2013, are hereby

11

continued to June 20, 2013, at 1:30 p.m.

12

IT IS SO ORDERED.

13
14

Dated: February 1, 2013

_________________________________
LUCY H. KOH
United States District Judge

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3

Case No.: 12-CV-04233-LHK
ORDER RE MOTION TO TRANSFER; MOTION TO RELATE; AND MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME