Sobel et al v. Hertz Corporation

Filing 400

ORDER granting in part and denying in part 396 Motion for Entry of Scheduling Order and granting in part and denying in part 399 Motion to Extend Time. Hertz shall publish notice to the class no later than 21 days after the Ninth Circuit issues decision on Hertz's emergency motion to stay. Paragraph 8 of final notice shall be modified by substitution of "$500,000" for "$300,000". Hertz shall have 7 days to submit description of prop osed changes to notice for consideration. Plaintiffs shall have 7 days thereafter to object. Please see attached for further details. Signed by Judge Larry R. Hicks on 6/4/14. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - JC)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

8

***

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16

JANET SOBEL and DANIEL DUGAN,
)
Ph.D., individually and on behalf of all others )
similarly situated,
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
v.
)
)
THE HERTZ CORPORATION, a Delaware )
corporation,
)
)
Defendant.
)
)

3:06-CV-00545-LRH-RAM
ORDER

Before the Court is Plaintiffs Janet Sobel and Daniel Dugan’s (“Plaintiffs”) Motion for

17

Entry of Scheduling Order and Setting of Hearing Date for Application for Attorneys’ Fees and

18

Costs. Doc. #396.1 Defendant, The Hertz Corporation (“Hertz”) filed a Response (Doc. #398), to

19

which Plaintiffs have not yet replied.2 Also before the Court is Hertz’s Emergency Motion for

20

Extension of Time Under Local Rules 6-1 and 7-5. Doc. #399.

21

On September 13, 2013, the Court set a schedule for publication of notice and certain other

22

deadlines following the date of publication. Doc. #362. On November 26, 2013, the Court

23

approved the contents of the notice and ordered that it be sent to the class, at Hertz’s expense, by

24
25

1

26

2

Refers to the Court’s docket number.

The Court notes that Plaintiffs’ Reply is presently due Monday, June 9, 2014, the same date
on which Plaintiffs propose that Defendant publish notice to the class.

1

February 24, 2014. Doc. #381. On January 2, 2014, the Court denied Hertz’s request for a stay of

2

its obligation to distribute notice pending resolution of its interlocutory appeal.3 Doc. #390.

3

Thereafter, the Court stayed proceedings in this Court until June 6, 2014, to facilitate mediation

4

efforts before the Ninth Circuit. Doc. #393; Doc. #395. On May 22, 2014, Hertz filed an

5

emergency motion before the Ninth Circuit to stay proceedings in this Court pending completion of

6

Hertz’s interlocutory appeal. USCA Case No. 13-17056, Doc. #26.

7

Although, the Court previously determined that a stay pending resolution of Hertz’s

8

interlocutory appeal was not warranted, the Court finds that the circumstances warrant a brief stay

9

pending resolution of Hertz’s emergency motion to stay before the Ninth Circuit. Were the Court

10

to require Hertz to send notice before the Ninth Circuit reaches a decision as to whether to stay

11

proceedings in this Court pending resolution of Hertz’ interlocutory appeal, Hertz’ motion to that

12

effect would be rendered moot. The Court is not inclined to deprive the Ninth Circuit of the

13

opportunity to reach the issue before it is no longer relevant. Moreover, because Hertz’s

14

emergency motion to stay is fully briefed, any suspension to Hertz’s obligation to publish notice

15

will be relatively brief. Accordingly, the Court rules that Hertz shall publish notice to the class no

16

later than twenty-one (21) days after the Ninth Circuit issues its decision on Hertz’s emergency

17

motion to stay proceedings in this Court pending completion of Hertz’s interlocutory appeal. The

18

Court approves of the manner in which Plaintiffs have calculated the remaining deadlines on their

19

proposed scheduling order. Accordingly, each subsequent date on Plaintiffs’ proposed schedule

20

shall be determined on this basis.

21
22

As Plaintiffs’ request for modification to the notice is unopposed, the Court accepts the
same. Accordingly, paragraph 8 of the final notice shall be modified by substitution of “$500,000”

23
3

24
25
26

Hertz filed an interlocutory appeal before the Ninth Circuit challenging the Court’s Order
directing Hertz to pay for the costs of notice without simultaneously requiring Plaintiffs or their
counsel to post a bond, or other security, or undertaking that they will repay those costs if the Ninth
Circuit rules it was improper to shift the costs of notice or if it rules judgment should not be entered
against Hertz. See USCA Case No. 13-17056.
2

1

for “$300,000.” Defendant likewise proposes some additional modifications, but has neglected to

2

explain its proposals in any detail. The Court declines to conduct a line-by-line comparison of

3

Hertz’s modified notice with the Court’s previously approved notice in order to ascertain its

4

modification requests. Should Hertz wish to propose additional modifications to the notice, it may

5

do so by appropriately identifying where and why those changes are sought.

6
7
8
9

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion for Entry of Scheduling Order
(Doc. #396) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part, in accordance with this Order.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Hertz’s Emergency Motion for Extension of Time Under

10

Local Rules 6-1 and 7-5 (Doc. #399) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part, in accordance

11

with this Order.

12

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Hertz shall publish notice to the class no later than

13

twenty-one (21) days after the Ninth Circuit issues its decision on Hertz’s emergency motion to

14

stay proceedings in this Court pending completion of Hertz’s interlocutory appeal. The remaining

15

deadlines shall be calculated according to the Court’s September 13, 2013 Order.

16
17

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that paragraph 8 of the final notice shall be modified by
substitution of “$500,000” for “$300,000.”

18

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Hertz shall have seven (7) days to submit to the Court a

19

description of its proposed changes to the notice for consideration. Plaintiffs shall have seven (7)

20

days thereafter in which to object to Hertz’s proposed changes. The Court will not consider any

21

further revisions to the notice after that time.

22
23

IT IS SO ORDERED.

24

DATED this 4th day of June, 2014.
__________________________________
LARRY R. HICKS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

25
26
3