Brum v. MarketSource, Inc.

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JENNIFER BRUM, et al., No. 2:17-cv-00241-DAD-JDP 12 Plaintiffs, 13 v. ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS TO STRIKE AND TO SUSPEND 14 MARKETSOURCE, INC., et al., DEADLINES 15 Defendants. (Doc. Nos. 148, 149) 16 17 18 On June 30, 2025, plaintiffs filed their renewed motion for class certification. (Doc. No. 19 147.) On July 3, 2025, defendants filed a motion to strike plaintiffs’ renewed motion for class 20 certification, arguing that in their renewed motion plaintiff failed to meet the standard applicable 21 to motions for reconsideration. (Doc. No. 148-1.) Defendants also filed a motion seeking to 22 suspend the briefing schedule in connection with plaintiffs’ renewed motion for class certification 23 until resolution of defendants’ motion to strike. (Doc. No. 149.) On July 8, 2025, plaintiffs filed 24 an opposition to defendants’ motion to strike, arguing that because the court explicitly granted 25 plaintiffs the right to file a renewed motion for class certification, plaintiffs are not required to 26 meet the standard applicable to motions for reconsideration. (Doc. No. 150.) 27 In the court’s order resolving plaintiffs’ initial motion for class certification, the court 28 specifically stated that plaintiffs’ motion was “denied, without prejudice to its renewal.” (Doc. 1 No. 128 at 5.) In the parties’ later-filed status report regarding scheduling, defendants raised the 2 argument that plaintiffs should be limited from filing a renewed motion based on arguments or 3 evidence that could reasonably have been raised earlier. (Doc. No. 129 at 5.) When the court 4 issued its scheduling order, the undersigned repeated that “plaintiffs are not precluded from filing 5 a renewed motion for class certification” and rejected defendants’ argument, holding that the 6 standard “pertain[ing] to a motion for reconsideration [] is not applicable to plaintiffs’ anticipated 7 class certification motion.” (Doc. No. 130 at 4 n.3.) 8 The undersigned acknowledges that while the Ninth Circuit has “not yet ruled on a 9 specific standard for review of serial motions for class certification,” some district judges have 10 applied the reconsideration standard to avoid “waste [of] judicial resources and unnecessarily 11 protract[ed] litigation.” Stemmelin v. Matterport, Inc., No. 20-cv-04168 WHA, 2022 WL 12 4843089, at *1–2 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 3, 2022); see also Ward v. Sutter Valley Hosps., No. 2:19-cv- 13 00581-KJM-AC, 2023 WL 1824198, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 11, 2023) (explaining that some district 14 courts apply the reconsideration standard out of “reluctan[ce] to allow parties to have a second 15 bite at the apple on class certification in order to incentivize parties to put their best foot forward 16 at the outset and avoid costly delays to the proceedings”). However, the court reaffirms that it 17 does not find the application of the reconsideration to be appropriate here. In this case the court 18 explicitly granted plaintiffs leave to renew their motion for class certification and plaintiffs timely 19 filed their renewed motion under the court’s scheduling order. These events distinguish this case 20 from those which defendants analogize to, where district courts have denied parties leave to file 21 renewed motions for class certification or have applied the reconsideration standard to untimely 22 filed motions. (See Doc. No. 148-1 at 6–10) (citing Shasta Linen Supply, Inc. v. Applied 23 Underwriters, Inc., No. 2:16-cv-01211-WBS-AC, 2019 WL 3244487, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 17, 24 2019) (denying the plaintiff’s request for leave to file a renewed motion for class certification); 25 Stockinger v. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc., No. 2:17-cv-00035-VAP-KS, 2020 WL 7314794, 26 at *2 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 30, 2020) (denying the plaintiffs’ request for “leave to file a renewed 27 motion for class certification well beyond the September 13, 2019 deadline imposed by the 28 Court”); Markson v. CRST Int’l, Inc., No. 5:17-cv-01261-SB-SP, 2022 WL 1585754, at *1 (C.D. 1 Cal. Apr. 6, 2022) (denying the plaintiffs’ motion to modify the court’s class certification order 2 after “[t]he deadline for class certification motions has long passed”); Stemmelin, 2022 WL 3 4843089, at 2 (granting the defendants’ motion to strike the plaintiff’s “belated” second class 4 certification motion, which was filed “two months after the June 2022 deadline for dispositive 5 motions”); Ward, 2023 WL 1824198, at *1 (granting the defendant’s motion to strike the 6 plaintiffs’ renewed motions for class and collective certification, which were filed after the 7 deadline “[u]nder the scheduling order governing this case” “without leave of court”)). 8 Accordingly, the court hereby DENIES defendants’ motion to strike (Doc. No. 148) 9 plaintiffs’ renewed motion for class certification for failure to adhere to the standard for a motion 10 for reconsideration. The court also therefore DENIES defendants’ motion to suspend deadlines 11 (Doc. No. 149) pending resolution of the motion to strike as having been rendered moot by this 12 order. However, it appears that plaintiffs’ renewed motion for class certification does not comply 13 with the court’s standing order, which requires that “[p]rior to filing a motion in a case in which 14 the parties are represented by counsel, counsel shall engage in a prefiling meet and confer to 15 discuss thoroughly the substance of the contemplated motion and any potential resolution” and a 16 “notice of motion shall contain a certification by counsel filing the motion that meet and confer 17 efforts have been exhausted, with a very brief summary of meet and confer efforts.” (Doc. No. 80 18 at 2); (see Doc. No. 147 at 4) (suggesting that plaintiffs’ counsel only met and conferred with 19 defendants’ counsel before filing their initial motion for class certification); (Doc. No. 149 at 4) 20 (“Plaintiffs’ counsel did not meet and confer with Defendants’ counsel before Plaintiffs filed their 21 renewed motion at 11:37 p.m. on the June 30, 2025 deadline.”). Accordingly, plaintiffs are 22 ordered to comply with the court’s requirement by filing a certification within ten days of the date 23 of entry of this order indicating whether any aspects of their renewed motion can be narrowed or 24 withdrawn following counsels’ meet and confer efforts. Defendants shall have fourteen days 25 ///// 26 ///// 27 ///// 28 ///// 1 | following the filing of plaintiffs’ certification to file any opposition to plaintiffs’ renewed motion 2 | forclass certification. Plaintiffs shall have seven days thereafter to file any reply. 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. * Dated: _ July 10, 2025 Da A. 2, sxe 5 DALE A. DROZD ‘ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28