Brinkley v. Monterey Financial Services, Inc.

• Court: District Court, S.D. California
• Decided: April 27, 2022
• Docket: 3:16-cv-01103
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 TIFFANY BRINKLEY, on behalf of Case No.: 16cv01103-LL-WVG herself and others similarly situated, 12 ORDER GRANTING Plaintiff, DEFENDANT’S EX PARTE 13 APPLICATION TO CONTINUE v. 14 THE HEARING DATE AND MONTEREY FINANCIAL SERVICES, BRIEFING SCHEDULE ON 15 LLC, successor-in-interest to MONTEREY PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR CLASS 16 FINANCIAL SERVICES, Inc., CERTIFICATION

17 Defendants. [ECF No. 191] 18 I. INTRODUCTION 19 Before the Court is Defendant Monterey Financial Services, LLC’s (“Defendant”) 20 Ex Parte Motion to Continue the Hearing and Briefing Schedule with respect to Plaintiff’s 21 Motion to Certify Class (the “Application”). ECF No. 191. After considering the papers 22 submitted, supporting documentation, and applicable law, and as set forth below, the Court 23 GRANTS the Application. 24 II. BACKGROUND 25 The Court incorporates the factual and procedural background of this case as set 26 forth in Brinkley v. Monterey Fin. Servs., LLC, No. 3:16-cv-01103-WQH-WVG, 2020 WL 27 1929023, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 21, 2020) (Hayes, J.) and Brinkley v. Monterey Fin. Servs., 28 LLC, No. 3:16-cv-01103-TWR-WVG, 2021 WL 6882428, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Dec. 6, 2021) 1 (Robinson, J.). 2 As pertains to the instant Application, on December 20, 2021, the Court issued a 3 Scheduling Order Regulating Class Certification, which provided as follows: 4 Filing: Deadline: 5 Motion for Class Certification: Thursday, April 7, 2022 6 Opposition: Thursday, April 28, 2022 7 Reply: Thursday, May 5, 2022 8 ECF No. 185 at 2, ¶ 6; see also CivLR 7.1. 9 On April 7, 2022, Plaintiff filed her Motion for Class Certification. ECF No. 187. 10 That same day, Plaintiff also filed a motion to seal various documents in support of her 11 motion, ECF No. 188, which were lodged with the Court as ECF No. 189. 12 Filing: Current Deadline: Proposed New Deadline: 13 Motion for Class Certification: Thursday, April 7, 2022 N/a 14 Opposition: Thursday, April 28, 2022 Thursday, May 12, 2022 15 Reply: Thursday, May 5, 2022 Thursday, May 19, 2022 16 Hearing: Thursday, May 12, 2022 Thursday, May 26, 2022 17 ECF No. 191 at 2-3. 18 On April 22, 2022, Defendant filed the instant Ex Parte Motion to Continue the 19 Hearing and Briefing Schedule with respect to Plaintiff’s Motion to Certify Class. ECF 20 No. 191. On April 25, 2022, Plaintiff opposed. ECF No. 192. III. DISCUSSION 21 22 Defendant argues that good cause exists for the continuance because “Plaintiff’s 23 Motion raises complex and substantial issues of law,” “[g]iven the nature of Plaintiff’s 24 Motion and the extensive work product necessary to generate the response in opposition to 25 the Motion, [it] requires additional time to prepare a complete response to same.” ECF 26 No. 191 at 2:17-28. Defendant’s counsel also indicates that it is lead counsel for two 27 defendants in a lawsuit pending the Western District of Texas, where the plaintiffs are 28 seeking more than $90 million in damages, and they recently had to spend “significant time 1 preparing a motion to dismiss and a motion to say discovery.” Id. at 3:1-11. Additionally, 2 they advise that the associating assigning lead counsel will be out of the office in the days 3 leading up the present opposition deadline due to the birth of a child. Id. at 3:12-15. 4 Plaintiff opposes by advancing three arguments: First, she contends Defendant has 5 known of its opposition deadline since January 4, 2022 but did not seek this continuance 6 until 108 days later. ECF No. 192 at 2:13-23. Second, Plaintiff argues that good cause 7 does not exist for the extension because Defendant bases its request on having to work on 8 other matters. Id. at 2:24-3:8. However, Defendant knew more than 123 days ago, when 9 the scheduling order was filed, that Plaintiff’s motion was due on April 7, 2022, meaning 10 Defendant’s opposition would be due three weeks later. Id. Nonetheless, Defendant chose 11 to work on other matters instead as well as wait until five courts days before the deadline 12 to seek an extension. Id. Third, Plaintiff argues that if the Court were to grant the ex parte 13 motion and continue Defendant’s opposition deadline to May 12, 2022, it would prejudice 14 Plaintiff’s counsel’s ability to file her reply because of Plaintiff’s counsel’s motion filing 15 deadlines and discovery response obligations in other cases during the time period of May 16 12, 2022 to May 19, 2022 (the date Defendant proposed that Plaintiff be required to file 17 her reply to Monterey’s opposition). Id. at 4:6-17. Thus, Plaintiff asks that if the Court 18 grants the request, it continue Plaintiff’s reply brief deadline to May 26, 2022. Id. 19 The Court does not find Defendant’s stated reasons to qualify as good cause to 20 continue the briefing schedule in a case that has been pending for almost six years. 21 Moreover, that the request was made four court days before the deadline is not well-taken. 22 However, given this is the first request with respect to the class certification motion, the 23 Court grants the Application as set forth below. 24 IV. CONCLUSION For the above reasons, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s request as follows: 25 Filing: Current Deadline: Proposed New Deadline: 26 Motion for Class Certification: Thursday, April 7, 2022 N/a 27 Opposition: Thursday, April 28, 2022 Thursday, May 12, 2022 28 Reply: Thursday, May 5, 2022 | Thursday, May 26, 2022 2 ||| Hearing: Thursday, May 12, 2022 The hearing will be vacated, and the Court will 3 take the matter under 4 submission unless the Court requests oral 5 argument. 6 No further continuances will be granted absent a strong showing of good cause. 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. ep 8|| DATED: April 27, 2022 9 HON. LINDA LOPEZ 10 United States District Judge 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28