Harper v. Charter Communications, LLC ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 ----oo0oo---- 11 12 LIONEL HARPER and DANIEL No. 2:19-cv-00902 WBS DMC SINCLAIR, individually and on 13 behalf of all others similarly situated and all aggrieved 14 employees, ORDER 15 Plaintiff, 16 v. 17 CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS, LLC, 18 Defendant. 19 20 ----oo0oo---- 21 On April 4, 2021, plaintiffs filed a Motion for Class 22 Certification, and noticed it for hearing on June 1, 2021. 23 (Docket No. 115.) Pursuant to a stipulated amendment to the 24 court’s scheduling order, defendant Charter Communications, LLC 25 (“Charter”) must file its Opposition to plaintiff’s Motion no 26 later than May 3, 2021. (Docket No. 104.) On April 16, 2021, 27 plaintiffs filed a separate Motion for Leave to File a Second 28 Amended Complaint. (Pl.’s Mot. to Modify the Scheduling Order & 1 for Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint (“Pl.’s Mot. for 2 Leave to File SAC”) (Docket No. 121).) This Motion is also set 3 for hearing on June 1, 2021, and Charter’s Opposition is due May 4 18, 2021, fifteen days after its Opposition to plaintiffs’ Motion 5 for Class Certification is due. (Id.) Charter has filed an ex 6 parte application to vacate the hearing on plaintiffs’ Motion for 7 Class Certification until their Motion to File a Second Amended 8 Complaint has been resolved. (Docket No. 123.) 9 Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended 10 Complaint seeks to add three additional named plaintiffs, all of 11 whom allegedly held different positions at Charter than the named 12 plaintiffs in the operative complaint, Lionel Harper and Daniel 13 Sinclair (i.e., “Direct Sales Reps” as opposed to “Account 14 Executives”). (See Pl.’s Mot. for Leave to File SAC at 8, 10.) 15 Plaintiff’s Motion also seeks to amend the class allegations, 16 class definitions, and allegations regarding Harper and 17 Sinclair’s personal claims. (See generally id.) 18 Because the court will have to assess whether the 19 claims of the named plaintiffs in this case are typical of those 20 of the proposed class, and whether the named plaintiffs will 21 fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class, when it 22 evaluates plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification, see Fed. R. 23 Civ. P. 23(a)(3)-(4), the court’s analysis (and the content of 24 Charter’s Opposition) will necessarily depend on the outcome of 25 plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint. 26 See Comcast Corp. v. Behrend, 569 U.S. 27, 33 (2013) 27 (“certification is proper only if ‘the trial court is satisfied, 28 after a rigorous analysis, that the prerequisites of Rule 23(a) nee enn een nn ne nnn nnn nn EO OIE I EE OE 1 have been satisfied” (quoting Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 2] U.S. 338, 350 (2011))). 3 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the hearing on plaintiffs’ 4 Motion for Class Certification (Docket No. 115) be, and the same 5 hereby is, VACATED, subject to the motion being renewed after the 6 court has resolved plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to File a Second 7 | Amended Complaint (Docket No. 121). | Dated: April 22, 2021 he ble 7H. De, bE 9 WILLIAM B. SHUBB UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28