Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-04858/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-04858-11/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 790
Nature of Suit: Other Labor Litigation
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Fair Labor Standards Act

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHAEL HENRY,

Plaintiff,

v.

HOME DEPOT U.S.A., INC,

Defendant.

Case No. 14-cv-04858-JST 

ORDER CONTINUING CLASS NOTICE 

DEADLINES AND SCHEDULING 

ORDER

Re: ECF Nos. 72, 73, 74, 75

Pursuant to the Court’s May 3, 2016 class certification order, ECF No. 65, both parties 

have submitted their proposed forms of notice and notice plans. See ECF Nos. 72, 75. However, 

the parties have also informed the Court that there is an overlapping class action currently pending 

in the Eastern District of California before the Honorable John A. Mendez. ECF Nos. 72, 73, 75; 

Bell et al. v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., No. 2:12-cv-02499-JAM-CKD. The defendant has also 

filed a motion to transfer venue of this action to the Eastern District of California based on the 

first-to-file rule. ECF No. 76. That motion will be heard by this Court on August 4, 2016. Id. In 

addition, the class representatives in the Bell case recently filed a motion to transfer venue to this 

district on convenience grounds. ECF No. 72 at 2. 

The Court agrees with Home Depot that, “[g]iven the competing venue motions in both 

cases . . . , it would be inappropriate and confusing to class members to send out a class notice 

referencing this Court when venue for the case may change.” Id. at 2. Instead, this Court believes 

that decisions as to the form of notice and notice plan should be deferred until both transfer 

motions have been decided. This will promote efficiency and eliminate the risk of conflicting 

decisions. 

Accordingly, the Court now sets September 9, 2016 as the deadline for parties to submit 

any modified proposed forms of notice and notice plans, if necessary due to transfer and/or 

Case 3:14-cv-04858-JST Document 77 Filed 07/05/16 Page 1 of 3
2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

consolidation. The Court also adopts the following additional deadlines from the parties’ May 26, 

2016 Joint Case Management Statement: 

Event Deadline

Deadline for defendant to provide mailing addresses and email 

addresses for putative class members to the administrator

30 days after 

approval of class 

notice

Deadline for class notice to be mailed to class members

45 days after 

approval of class 

notice

Deadline for class members to opt out 60 days after mailing 

of class notice

Dispositive motion filing date January 13, 2017

Discovery cut-off March 1, 2017

Pretrial statement April 4, 2017

Pretrial conference April 14, 2017 at 

2:00 p.m.

Trial May 8, 2017 at 8:30 

a.m.

Length of trial (in days) Eight

This case will be tried to a jury. 

Counsel may not modify these dates without leave of court. The parties shall comply with 

the Court’s standing orders, which are available at cand.uscourts.gov/jstorders.

The parties must take all necessary steps to conduct discovery, compel discovery, hire 

counsel, retain experts, and manage their calendars so that they can complete discovery in a timely 

manner and appear at trial on the noticed and scheduled dates. All counsel must arrange their 

calendars to accommodate these dates, or arrange to substitute or associate in counsel who can. 

Trial dates set by this Court should be regarded as firm. Requests for continuance are 

disfavored. The Court will not consider any event subsequently scheduled by a party, partyCase 3:14-cv-04858-JST Document 77 Filed 07/05/16 Page 2 of 3
3

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

controlled witness, expert or attorney that conflicts with the above trial date as good cause to grant 

a continuance. The Court will not consider the pendency of settlement discussions as good cause 

to grant a continuance. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 5, 2016

______________________________________

JON S. TIGAR

United States District Judge

Case 3:14-cv-04858-JST Document 77 Filed 07/05/16 Page 3 of 3