Salhotra v. Simpson Strong-Tie Company, Inc. ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 RAVI SALHOTRA, et al., Case No. 19-cv-07901-TSH 8 Plaintiffs, ORDER RE: EX PARTE 9 v. APPLICATION FOR ORDER SHORTENING TIME ON 10 SIMPSON STRONG-TIE COMPANY, PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO STAY INC., et al., PROCEEDINGS 11 Defendants. Re: Dkt. No. 183 12 13 I. INTRODUCTION 14 Pending before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Ex Parte Application for Order Shortening Time on 15 Plaintiffs’ Motion to Stay Proceedings. ECF No. 183. On March 21, 2022, Defendants filed an 16 Opposition. ECF No. 186. The Court finds this matter suitable for disposition without oral 17 argument. See Civ. L.R. 7-1(b). Having considered the parties’ positions, relevant legal authority, 18 and the record in this case, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Ex Parte Application for Order 19 Shortening Time on Plaintiffs’ Motion to Stay Proceedings for the following reasons. 20 II. BACKGROUND 21 This case involves Plaintiffs’ allegations that Defendants’ products, HD Strap-tie 22 Holdowns and MAS Mudsil Anchors, are inherently defective and prone to premature corrosion, 23 thereby breaching Defendants’ express warranty. SAC ¶ 123. 24 On March 3, 2022, the Court denied Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification. ECF No. 25 180. On March 17, 2022, Plaintiffs filed a Motion to Stay Proceedings Pending Ruling on 26 Plaintiffs’ Rule 23(f) Position (“Motion to Stay”), ECF No. 182, and an Ex Parte Application for 27 Shortening Time for Plaintiffs’ Motion to Stay, ECF No. 183. On March 21, 2022, Defendants 1 to Stay, ECF No. 183. A hearing for Plaintiffs’ Motion to Stay is scheduled for April 21, 2022. 2 III. DISCUSSION 3 Plaintiffs argue the Court should require Defendants to file a response to Plaintiffs’ Motion 4 to Stay by March 22, 2022 and vacate the April 21, 2022 hearing. ECF No. 183 at 4. Plaintiffs 5 argue that, if the briefing schedule is not shortened and the parties proceed with the April 21, 2022 6 hearing, Plaintiffs will be prejudiced by having to continue litigating the case. Id. Plaintiffs also 7 argue shortened time will conserve judicial resources. Id. 8 The Court denies Plaintiffs’ request to require Defendants to file a response to Plaintiffs’ 9 Motion to Stay by March 22, 2022. Notably, Plaintiffs failed to follow the requirements of Civil 10 Local Rule 6-3, which requires, in support of a motion to shorten time, a declaration that: 11 (1) Sets forth with particularity the reasons for the requested enlargement or shortening of time; 12 (2) Describes the efforts the party has made to obtain a stipulation to the time change; 13 (3) Identifies the substantial harm or prejudice that would occur if the Court did not change the time; and 14 (4) If the motion is to shorten time for the Court to hear a motion: (i) Describes the moving party’s compliance with Civil L.R. 15 37-1(a), where applicable, and (ii) Describes the nature of the underlying dispute that would 16 be addressed in the motion and briefly summarizes the position each party had taken. 17 (5) Discloses all previous time modifications in the case, whether by stipulation or Court order; 18 (6) Describes the effect the requested time modification would have on the schedule for the case 19 Civ. L. R. 6-3(a). 20 However, given Plaintiffs’ filing of a Rule 23(f) Petition, the Court finds cause to modify 21 the current briefing schedule for Plaintiffs’ Motion to Stay. See Zivkovic v. Southern California 22 Edison Co., 302 F.3d 1080, 1087 (9th Cir.2002) (quoting Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 23 975 F.2d 604, 607 (9th Cir.1992)) (“The district court is given broad discretion in supervising the 24 pretrial phase of litigation.”); Civ. L. R. 6-3(d) (“After receiving a motion to enlarge or shorten 25 time and any opposition, the Judge may grant, deny, modify the requested time change or schedule 26 the matter for additional briefing or a hearing.”) 27 Defendants’ response must be filed by March 25, 2022. Plaintiffs’ reply must be filed by 1 || April 1, 2022. 2 IV. CONCLUSION 3 For the reasons stated above, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's Ex Parte Application for Order 4 || Shortening Time on Plaintiffs’ Motion to Stay Proceedings for the following reasons. The Court 5 ORDERS the following briefing schedule for Plaintiffs’ Motion to Stay Proceedings, ECF No. 6 182: 7 Defendants’ Response due by March 25, 2022. 8 Plaintiffs’ Reply due by April 1, 2022. 9 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. 11 2 Dated: March 22, 2022 THOMAS S. HIXSON United States Magistrate Judge 16 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28