Fan v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 ----oo0oo---- 11 12 LI FAN, individually and on No. 1:21-cv-01355 WBS KJN behalf of all others similarly 13 situated, 14 Plaintiff, ORDER 15 v. 16 HOME DEPOT U.S.A., INC., a Delaware Corporation; and DOES 17 1-50, inclusive, 18 Defendants. 19 20 ----oo0oo---- 21 This case was set for hearing on September 6, 2022 on 22 defendant’s motion to dismiss (Docket No. 6). The court was 23 prepared to hear and decide the motion on the merits, but at oral 24 argument, counsel for both sides discussed cases which they had 25 not previously brought to the court’s attention, and which may 26 have substantial bearing on this motion.1 27 1 One case, Naranjo v. Spectrum Security Services, Inc., 28 13 Cal. 5th 93 (2022), was decided in May 2022, after briefing 1 The court notes that this motion was fully briefed as 2 of November 3, 2021 but was only reassigned to the undersigned on 3 July 28, 2022, after the court found this case was related to an 4 earlier-filed related case, Reynosa v. Home Depot, No. 2:21-cv- 5 01096 WBS KJN. The undersigned thereafter promptly set the for 6 hearing. (See Docket Nos. 11, 23, 25.) The delay in 7 reassignment resulted from counsel’s failure to fully comply with 8 Local Rule 123. The notice of related cases was initially filed 9 in this case only, contrary to Local Rule 123’s requirement that 10 “[c]ounsel who has reason to believe that an action on file or 11 about to be filed may be related to another action on file . . . 12 shall promptly file in each action and serve on all parties in 13 each action a Notice of Related Cases.”2 Thus, the undersigned 14 had no knowledge of this case until late July 2022, when the 15 parties in this case finally filed their notice of related case 16 in Reynosa, after being ordered to do so by Judge Thurston in 17 this case. (See Docket No. 47 in Case No. 2:21-cv-01096 WBS KJN; 18 Docket No. 21 in Case No. 1:21-cv-01355 WBS KJN.) 19 Laying aside the parties’ failure to fully comply with 20 Local Rule 123, the parties still could have avoided taking the 21 court by surprise by notifying the court of the additional 22 was complete but more than three months before the hearing in 23 this case. The other case, cited by plaintiff at oral argument, Moore v. Mars Petcare US, Inc., 966 F.3d 1007 (2020), was decided 24 more than two years before oral argument and more than a year before briefing in this case was complete. 25 26 2 The court notes that defendant first attached a notice of related case to the notice of removal, and then two months 27 later filed a separate notice of related case, both times filing the notice of related case in this case only. (See Docket Nos. 28 1-6, 12.) eee eee eee EE OE EOD 1 authorities they sought to rely on by, for example, seeking leave 2 to file supplemental briefs discussing these additional 3 authorities. They did not do so, and provide no justification 4 for this failure. 5 The court prefers not to do the research for the 6 | parties in order to decide the instant motion. Instead, as 7 discussed by the court at the hearing, the court will deny the 8 pending motion to dismiss without prejudice to refiling, without 9 reaching the merits of defendant’s motion. 10 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that defendant’s motion to 11 dismiss (Docket No. 6) be, and the same hereby is, DENIED without 12 prejudice to refiling. Defendant shall file a new motion to 13 dismiss, discussing all cases defendant intends to rely on, 14 | within fourteen days of the date of this order. Plaintiff shall 15 file her opposition to the new motion to dismiss within fourteen 16 | days, discussing all cases plaintiff intends to rely upon. Any 17 reply shall be filed within ten days of plaintiff’s opposition. 18 The new motion to dismiss will be heard by Zoom at 1:30 p.m. 19 October 31, 2022. 20 | Dated: September 8, 2022 tleom ah. A. be—~ 21 WILLIAM B. SHUBB UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 22 23 24 25 26 27 28