Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_11-cv-02491/USCOURTS-caed-2_11-cv-02491-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 710
Nature of Suit: Fair Labor Standards Act
Cause of Action: 15:5(a) 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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RYAN YOUNG,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-11-2491 KJM-JFM

vs.

MATTHEW CATE, in his capacity as the ORDER

Secretary of the California Department of 

Corrections and Rehabilitation,

Defendant. 

 /

This matter comes before the court upon plaintiff’s ex parte application for an

extension of time to notice its motion for class certification. (ECF 39.) This is plaintiff’s second

request for an extension of time related to class certification. (See ECF 34.) 

In its status (pretrial scheduling) order, issued on February 22, 2012, the court

ordered the parties to appear at a further status conference on June 28, 2012. (ECF 28.) At this

further status conference, the court granted plaintiff leave to file a request to extend the

discovery cutoff. (ECF 33.) Plaintiff filed said request on July 13, 2012. (ECF 34.) The court

granted plaintiff’s request, extending the cutoff of the first phase of discovery to August 23,

2012, but leaving all other deadlines unchanged. (ECF 28.) These deadlines are as follows:

second phase of discovery to be completed by December 3, 2012; dispositive motions heard by

1

Case 2:11-cv-02491-KJM-AC Document 41 Filed 10/03/12 Page 1 of 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

February 1, 2013; final pretrial conference set for March 21, 2013; and trial set for April 29,

2013. (ECF 28.)

Given these impending deadlines, plaintiff’s prior failure to move for

modification of the court’s pretrial scheduling order suggests neglect. Plaintiff claims he is

seeking only an extension of time to file his motion for class certification but in the same breath

indicates he “need[s] additional time to interview and obtain declarations from a good number of

[potential class members].” (ECF 39 at 4.) Plaintiff noticably does not ask the court to extend

the cutoff for class certification discovery, which has come and gone.

In light of defendant’s apparent willingness to stipulate to a modification of the

court’s pretrial scheduling order, plaintiff is hereby ORDERED to seek such a stipulation from

defendant. The parties shall file a joint status report within ten (10) days of the entry of this

order, in which they shall indicate whether they have been able to reach such a stipulation. If a

stipulation is not reached, plaintiff may seek leave of this court to file a request for modification

of the pretrial scheduling order which shall address and apply Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

16(b)(4) and relevant case law.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: October 3, 2012. 

2

Case 2:11-cv-02491-KJM-AC Document 41 Filed 10/03/12 Page 2 of 2