Martinez-Sanchez v. Anthony Vineyards, Inc. ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 SEBASTIANA MARTINEZ-SANCHEZ, et ) Case No.: 1:19-cv-01404-DAD-JLT al., ) 12 Plaintiffs, ) ORDER GRANTING LEAVE TO FILE SUR- ) REPLY 13 v. ) ) 14 ANTHONY VINEYARDS, INC., et al., ) 15 Defendants. ) ) 16 ) 17 Plaintiffs seek class certification pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 18 (Doc. 66.) On June 30, 2021, Defendants filed its opposition to the motion. (Doc. 70.) Plaintiffs filed a 19 reply on July 30, 2021. (Doc. 71). 20 In its opposition, Defendants contend that Plaintiffs lack standing under Article III to represent 21 and certify a class pursuant to Rule 23(b)(2), citing evidence that Plaintiffs were employed with 22 Defendants in 2017, 2018, and 2019, but they both quit in the middle of the 2019 harvest season, 23 before this action was filed. (Doc. 70 at 22-23.) In reply, Plaintiffs assert that, given this discrepancy 24 in the timeline of their employment with Defendants, Plaintiffs do not intend to seek to represent a 25 declaratory and injunctive relief class pursuant to Rule 23(b)(2). (Doc. 71 at 13.) In Plaintiffs’ reply, 26 Plaintiffs identified a putative class member, Antonio Martinez, who was employed by Defendants 27 until at least January 2020 and is willing to step into the role of class representative. (Doc. 71 at 14.) 28 Plaintiffs request the Court to exercise its discretion and appoint Antonio Martinez as class 1 representative for both the declaratory and injunctive relief class under Rule 23(b)(2) and the monetary 2 relief class under Rule 23(b)(3). (Doc. 71 at 14.) The Court accordingly grants Defendants leave to file 3 a sur-reply only on the issue of allowing a new class representative to be named. See, e.g., Baker v. 4 Big Lots Stores, Inc., 2009 WL 10673045 at *3 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 25, 2009) (“the Court granted 5 Defendants leave to file a surreply to address Plaintiff’s proposed amendment to the class definition 6 and any other entirely new arguments raised in the Reply brief”). Accordingly, the Court ORDERS: 7 1. Defendants are GRANTED seven days from the date of service of this order to file a 8 sur-reply only on the issue of allowing a new class representative to be named. The 9 plaintiffs may file a reply seven days thereafter. 10 2. The hearing scheduled for August 16, 2021 is RESCHEDULED to September 3, 2021 11 at 10 a.m. 12 13 IT IS SO ORDERED. 14 Dated: August 9, 2021 _ /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 15 CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28