Mohamed v. Kellogg Company
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Myron James Lorenz (author)
Analysis
The court considered a joint motion by the parties in a consumer class action to extend the deadline for class certification briefing to conduct expert discovery. The court denied the motion, finding that the parties failed to demonstrate good cause under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b) for the delay.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Denial of Joint Motion to Continue Class Certification Briefing Schedule“The Joint Motion to Continue Class Certification Briefing Schedule is denied.” | agree with court The court correctly applied the 'good cause' standard required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b) for extending time limits. The order recites a history of multiple prior extensions granted for mediation and expert discovery, noting that the parties failed to explain why discovery was not completed in the preceding six months. Given the parties' control over their own discovery schedule and the lack of explanation for the delay, the denial is a reasonable exercise of discretion. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It correctly identifies the applicable standard (Rule 6(b) good cause) and applies it to the specific facts recited (failure to explain delay in expert discovery despite prior extensions). The reliance on Comcast and Vaquero provides necessary context for why the expert discovery is critical to the pending class certification motion, reinforcing the need for the parties to have completed it earlier.
Opinion
7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9
10 TASNEEM L. MOHAMED, Case No. 3:14-cv-02449-L-MDD 11 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING JOINT MOTION TO CONTINUE CLASS 13 v. CERTIFICATION BRIEFING 14 KELLOGG COMPANY, 15 Defendant. 16 17 18 Pending before the Court in this putative consumer class action alleging false and 19 misleading food labeling is the Joint Motion to Continue Class Certification Briefing 20 Schedule. For the reasons stated below, the motion is denied. 21 Plaintiff's initial motion to certify a class action was denied without prejudice on 22 March 23, 2019, based on Comcast Corp v. Behrend, 569 U.S. 27 (2013), and Vaquero v. 23 Ashley Furniture Indus., 824 F.3d 1150 (9th Cir. 2016), because Plaintiff's proposed model 24 of damages did not meet the predominance requirement of Federal Rule of Civil 25 Procedure 23(b)(3). (Doc. no. 88.) Plaintiff was granted leave to file another class 26 certification motion supported by adequate proof. (Id.) Plaintiff timely filed her renewed 27 motion on May 22, 2019. (Doc. no. 89.) 28 1 On June 4, 2019, the parties filed a joint motion to extend the time for the 2 opposition and reply briefs to conduct expert discovery because Plaintiff's damages expert 3 had submitted a new report, and both parties wanted to conduct additional expert 4 depositions. (Doc. no. 93.) The joint motion did not explain why the parties did not 5 complete this discovery in the preceding two and a half months. Accordingly, their 6 request was denied. (Doc. no. 94.) They resubmitted their motion. (Doc. no. 95.) While 7 they did not explain their lack of progress to date, they explained the press of business that 8 would prevent them from completing the expert discovery in less than the requested five 9 weeks. Before the Court ruled on this request, they filed another motion, this time 10 seeking an extension of time until October 31, 2019, on the alternative ground that they 11 wanted to attend mediation. (Doc. no. 96.) 12 Based on the stated intent to pursue mediation, the Court granted the latter request. 13 (Doc. no. 97.) On September 23, 2019, the parties filed another request for an extension 14 of time because the defense counsel could not attend mediation which had been set for 15 August 28, 2019, and the new mediation date was October 9, 2019. They wanted an 16 additional 45 days after mediation to prepare their opposition and reply briefs if the case 17 did not settle. (Doc. no. 99.) The Court granted the request, extending the due date for 18 Defendant's opposition until November 22, 2019, and Plaintiff's reply until January 3, 19 2020. (Doc. no. 100.) 20 On October 15, 2019, the parties filed a joint status report informing the Court that 21 the case did not settle in mediation, but they continued their negotiations through the 22 mediator. (Doc. no. 102.) On November 6, 2019, they filed the pending joint motion for 23 an extension of time on the grounds that following the October 9, 2019 mediation, the 24 parties attempted to schedule expert depositions, but could not schedule Plaintiff's expert's 25 deposition until December 2, 2019. They request extending the briefing due dates by a 26 month, with Defendant's opposition due December 20, 2019, and Plaintiff's reply on 27 January 31, 2010. (Doc. no. 103.) 28 1 The parties have the burden of showing good cause pursuant to Federal Rule of 2 || Civil Procedure 6(b) to warrant the requested extension. They have provided no reason 3 || why they have not completed damages expert discovery during the last six months. Surely the expert opinions were relevant for settlement negotiations and would be needed 5 || for class action settlement approval, if the case had settled. 6 The parties have not shown good cause for the requested extension. The Joint 7 || Motion to Continue Class Certification Briefing Schedule is denied. 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. 9 10|| Dated: November 8, 2019 pee ep? 12 H . James Lorenz, B United States District Judge 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28