L.S. v. Happy Hippo, LLC

District Court, E.D. California·Decided August 20, 2025·No. 2:24-cv-02849·Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 L.S., No. 2:24-cv-02849-DAD-SCR 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. SCHEDULING ORDER 14 HAPPY HIPPO, LLC, 15 Defendant. 16 17 Pursuant to Rule 16(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the court has reviewed the 18 parties’ joint status report (Doc. No. 24) and has determined that the court need not “consult[] 19 with the parties’ attorneys and any unrepresented parties at a scheduling conference,” before 20 issuing a scheduling order in this case. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(1)(B). Accordingly, the court 21 vacates the initial scheduling conference set for August 25, 2025 and hereby issues this 22 scheduling order. 23 I. SERVICE OF PROCESS 24 The named defendant Happy Hippo, LLC has been served as required by Federal Rule of 25 Civil Procedure 5. No further service is permitted without leave of court, good cause having been 26 shown under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b). 27 ///// 28 ///// 1 II. JOINDER OF ADDITIONAL PARTIES / AMENDMENT OF PLEADINGS 2 The parties have not informed the court regarding whether they anticipate the joinder of 3 additional parties or amendment of the pleadings. 4 No further joinder of parties or amendments to pleadings is permitted without leave of 5 court, good cause having been shown. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b); Johnson v. Mammoth 6 Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 27 604 (9th Cir. 1992). The parties are advised that the filing of 7 motions and/or stipulations requesting leave to amend the pleadings does not imply good cause to 8 modify the existing schedule. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16 (b)(4); see also Johnson, 975 F. 2d at 609. 9 Moreover, any amendment requested under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) must not be: 10 (1) prejudicial to the opposing party; (2) the product of undue delay; (3) proposed in bad faith; or 11 (4) futile. See Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962). 12 III. DISCOVERY PROCEDURES 13 Discovery matters that do not implicate the schedule of the case or that do not relate to 14 sealing or redaction of documents related to dispositive motions are referred to the assigned 15 United States Magistrate Judge, who will hear all discovery disputes subject to his or her 16 procedures. (The assigned magistrate judge’s initials follow the district judge’s initials next to the 17 case number.) All discovery documents must include the words “DISCOVERY MATTER” in 18 the caption to ensure proper routing. Do not direct delivery of courtesy copies of these 19 documents to the district judge. Counsel are directed to contact the magistrate judge’s courtroom 20 deputy clerk to schedule discovery matters for hearing. 21 All motions to compel discovery must be noticed on the assigned magistrate judge’s 22 calendar in accordance with the local rules of this court and the magistrate judge’s own 23 procedures. The written ruling of the assigned magistrate judge shall be final, subject to 24 modification by the district court only where it has been shown that the magistrate judge’s order 25 is clearly erroneous or contrary to law. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). Pursuant to Local Rule 26 303, any party may file and serve a “Request for Reconsideration by the District Court of 27 Magistrate Judge’s Ruling.” See L.R. 303(c). The requesting party must file and serve any such 28 request within fourteen (14) days of service of a written ruling. L.R. 303(b). The request must 1 specify which portions of the ruling are clearly erroneous or contrary to law and the basis for that 2 contention with supporting points and authorities. L.R. 303(c). 3 In addition, the assigned magistrate judge reviews proposed discovery phase protective 4 orders sought by the parties pursuant to Local Rule 141.1. However, requests to seal or redact in 5 connection with dispositive motions or trial are decided by Judge Drozd and any such requests 6 must comply with Judge Drozd’s Standing Order and Local Rules 140 and 141. 7 IV. DISCOVERY DEADLINES 8 A. Rule 26(a) Initial Disclosures 9 The parties shall serve their initial disclosures pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 10 Rule 26(a)(1) no later than September 8, 2025, which is a date proposed by the parties. 11 Any parties served or joined after the issuance of this scheduling order shall “make the 12 initial disclosures within 30 days after being served or joined,” as provided by Rule 26(a)(1)(D). 13 B. Class Certification 14 The parties propose that only certain deadlines—including the parties’ briefing schedule 15 for plaintiff’s motion for class certification—be set at this time and that the court set further 16 deadlines after resolution of plaintiff’s anticipated motion. (Doc. No. 24 at 3.) However, the 17 parties propose competing schedules. (Id. at 3–4.) For instance, plaintiff proposes that fact 18 discovery continue after plaintiff’s class certification motion and suggests that the court set no 19 fact discovery deadlines at this time. (Id. at 3.) On the other hand, defendant appears to propose 20 that all fact discovery be completed prior to plaintiff’s motion for class certification, starting with 21 fact discovery regarding plaintiff’s individual claims, followed by fact discovery regarding 22 plaintiff’s class claims. (Id. at 4.) As the parties’ joint statement provides, “certain discovery will 23 only become necessary after a class is certified.” (Id. at 2.) Given the possible need for further 24 fact discovery following the court’s order on plaintiff’s motion for class certification, the court 25 declines to set fact discovery deadlines at this time. (Id.) Additionally, defendant proposes that 26 prior to plaintiff’s motion for class certification, the parties should file dispositive motions 27 relating to plaintiff’s individual claims. (Id. at 4.) With an eye toward ensuring than any 28 ///// 1 dispositive motions are decided on the merits with the benefit of all discovery, the court declines 2 to set such a deadline. As such, the court adopts plaintiff’s proposed schedule as follows. 3 Any motion for class certification pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 shall be 4 filed by no later than May 13, 2026. Plaintiff shall produce his class certification expert(s) for 5 deposition no later than June 10, 2026. Defendant shall file any opposition to plaintiff’s motion 6 for class certification no later than July 8, 2026. Defendant shall produce its class certification 7 expert(s) for deposition no later than August 5, 2026. Plaintiff shall file any reply in support of 8 his motion for class certification no later than September 2, 2026. 9 Absent further order of the court, the parties shall file a joint status report regarding 10 scheduling within fourteen (14) days of the court issuing an order resolving plaintiff’s anticipated 11 motion for class certification. The court therefore will not set dates for the pretrial conference 12 and trial in this action at this time. 13 V.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

L.S. v. Happy Hippo, LLC, (E.D. Cal. 2025).

L.S. v. Happy Hippo, LLC (L.S. v. Happy Hippo, LLC) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Foman v. Davis
371 U.S. 178 (Supreme Court, 1962)