Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-00644/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-00644-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 710
Nature of Suit: Fair Labor Standards Act
Cause of Action: 29:0201fl FLSA: Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)

---

1 FILED

2 NOV 2 3 2016

3

. 4 BY

' 5

6

7

8

9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11

12 ERIK KELLGREN, individually and on

behalf of all others similarly situated,

Case No.: 3:13cv644L(KSC)

... 13 ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND

DENYING IN PART JOINT

MOTION REGARDING

DEFENDANTS PETCO ANIMAL

SUPPLIES, INC., AND PETCO

HOLDINGS, INC.’S MOTION TO

DISMISS CERTAIN OPT-IN

PLAINTIFFS FOR FAILURE TO

RESPOND TO DISCOVERY AND

COMPLY WITH COURT ORDERS

Plaintiffs,

14

v. 15

PETCO ANIMAL SUPPLIES, INC.;

PETCO HOLDINGS, INC.; and DOES 1

to 100, inclusive

16

17 9 9

18 Defendants.

19

20

[Doc. No. 179] 21

22 Before the Court is a Joint Motion Regarding Petco Animal Supplies, Inc., and Petco

Holding, Inc.’s (“Defendants”) Motion to Dismiss Certain Opt-In Plaintiffs for Failure to

Respond to Discovery and Comply with Court Orders filed by defendants. [Doc. No. 179.]

Defendants seek a Court Order that: (1) dismisses with prejudice the Non-Responsive OptIn plaintiffs for failure to respond to discovery and failure to prosecute their claims; or, in

the alternative, (2) compels the Non-Responsive Opt-In plaintiffs to respond to discovery

23

24

25

26

27

28

l

3:13cv644L(KSC)

Case 3:13-cv-00644-L-KSC Document 188 Filed 11/23/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 7
within thirty days ofthe date ofthis Order or face dismissal with prejudice. Id. at p. 5. Also,

counsel for plaintiffs seek leave from the Court to withdraw as counsel for certain NonResponsive Opt-Ins. Id. at p. 18. For the reasons addressed more thoroughly below, the

Joint Motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. [Doc. No. 179.]

I. BACKGROUND

This is a collective action in which plaintiffs Erik Kellgren (“Kellgren”) and others

employed as Assistant Managers in defendants’ stores claim to have been misclassified as

“exempt” from the overtime provisions ofthe Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938,29 U.S.C.

201, etseq. (“FLSA”). The central issues in the case relate to the duties plaintiffs performed

in the course oftheir employment, and whether they worked over 40 hours a week during

the relevant time frame.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

: 12 II. DISCUSSION

13 a) Defendants’ Request To Dismiss With Prejudice The Non-Responsive

Plaintiffs For Failure To Respond To Discovery And Failure To Prosecute 14 Their Claims.

15

The instant dispute concerns certain provisions in the Scheduling Order issued by

this Court on March 29, 2016 [Doc. No. 117] and a subsequent Order issued on August 1,

2016 modifying the March 29, 2016 Scheduling Order. [Doc. No. 168.] Pursuant to the

August 1, 2016 Order, defendants could serve limited written discovery on up to 25%, or

118, ofthe opt-in class ofplaintiffs (“Discovery Opt-Ins”). [Doc. No. 168, p. 7; Doc. No.

179, p. 6.]

16

17

18

19

20

21

Defendants assert that after the August 1, 2016 Order was issued, the parties

developed a process for selecting the representative group of 118 Discovery Opt-Ins to

respond to defendants limited written discovery. [Doc. No. 179, p. 6.] Defendants assert

that the parties agreed that the Discovery Opt-Ins would serve written responses to

defendants’ discovery in four batches, on dates beginning on September 7, 2016 and

concluding on October 21,2016. Id. at p. 7. Defendants subsequently agreed to extensions

for some ofthe deadlines. Id. As of October 26, 2016, the deadlines for responses passed

22

23

24

25

26

27

28.

2

3:13cv644L(KSC)

Case 3:13-cv-00644-L-KSC Document 188 Filed 11/23/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 7
for all ofthe original 118 Discovery Opt-Ins, but the parties had met and conferred only as

to the first three batches ofDiscovery Opt-Ins, consisting of 94 individuals.1 Id. Ofthe 94

Discovery Opt-Ins, defendants identify a group of eighteen “Non-Responsive Opt-Ins” in

their Motion for whom they now seek dismissal, with prejudice.2 Id. at pp. 5, 8.

In the Joint Motion, counsel for the Discovery Opt-Ins, Klafter Olsen & Lesser, LLP

(“KOL”) and Hepworth, Gershbaum and Roth PLLC (“HGR”) (together as “Plaintiffs’

Counsel”), seek leave from the Court to withdraw as counsel for certain Non-Responsive

Opt-Ins. Id. at p. 18. Plaintiffs’ counsel asserts that they “are not in a position to respond

to [defendants’] motion because of a breakdown in the attorney-client relationship with the

Non-Responsive Opt-Ins.” Id. Plaintiffs’ counsel asserts that:

In light of the cross-motion to withdraw, Plaintiffs (excluding the NonResponsive Opt-ins) take no position on the propriety of the next steps,

including Defendants’ position that the Non-Responsive Opt-ins’ claims

should be dismissed. While such a dismissal order would, in Plaintiffs’

counsel’s experience, not be unusual, Plaintiffs’ counsel believes that, as has

most often been done, any such dismissal should be without prejudice.

Id. atpp. 20-21.

Plaintiffs further suggest that:

[W]aiting until all the discovery responses are due, on December 5, 2016,

prior to issuance of a final order is a better approach, rather than multiple,

piecemeal motions on the same topic. Waiting to address dismissal, will also

enable the Court to determine whether other Non-Responsive Opt-[I]ns exist

and will allow it to ensure that the final number of discovery opt-ins is

consistent with the numbers contained within the Court’s August 1, 2016

Order.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

.22

23 i Defendants note that they have not had an opportunity to analyze the Discovery Opt-ins responses

received after October 21, 2016, and thus the parties have not met and conferred about any deficiencies

in those responses. [Doc. No. 179, p. 7.] Defendants further note that they bring this Motion as to all

Non-Responsive Discovery Opt-ins who have been identified and about whom the parties have met and

conferred as ofOctober 26,2016. Id. Defendants anticipate that they may have to file a future motion to

dismiss if additional individuals fail to timely respond to the discovery at issue. Id.

24

25

26

27 2 Defendants note that ifthe Court does not have authority to dismiss the claims outright, they request

that the Court issue a Report and Recommendation to the District Judge recommending dismissal ofthe

Non-Responsive Opt-ins’ claims. Id. at p. 5. 28

3

3:13cv644L(KSC)

Case 3:13-cv-00644-L-KSC Document 188 Filed 11/23/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 7
1 Id. atp. 21.

The defense anticipates filing a future motion to dismiss based on its analysis and 2

meet and confer efforts of the responses received on October 24, 2016 and October 25,

2016, and/or if additional individuals fail timely to respond. Id. at p. 7. The defense notes

that it filed the instant Motion in accordance with the due date provided in Section V ofthe

Court’s Chamber Rules -- Civil Pretrial Procedures. Id. As provided therein, “[u]nless

otherwise ordered, discovery motions shall be filed no later than 45 days after the event

giving rise to the dispute and only after counsel have met and conferred. ... For written

discovery, the event giving rise to the dispute is . .. the passage of a discovery due date

without response or production.” [Judge Crawford’s Civil Chambers Rules, Section V, A,

at p. 4.]

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

Having considered the parties’ arguments, the Court DENIES defendants’ request

to dismiss with prejudice the claims of eighteen Non-Responsive Opt-In plaintiffs who

have failed to timely respond to Petco’s discovery requests. The Court notes that it does

not have the authority to dismiss the claims outright, but DENIES defendants’ request to

issue a Report and Recommendation to the District Judge recommending dismissal ofthe

Non-Responsive Opt-Ins’ claims at this time.

12

■13

14

15

16

17

b) Defendants’ Request To Compel The Non-Responsive Opt-In Plaintiffs To

Respond To Discovery Within Thirty Days OfThe Date Of This Order Or 18

19 Face Dismissal With Prejudice.3

20

In the alternative to its request for dismissal, defendants seek an Order pursuant to

FRCP 37(a)(3)(B), “to be personally served on the Non-Responsive Opt-Ins by their

counsel, compelling the Non-Responsive Opt-Ins to Respond to [defendants’] written

discovery requests within thirty days ofthe date ofthe order, and explicitly stating that a

21

22

23

24

25

26

3 Defendants note that the instant Motion is brought within 45 days ofthe date the first group of NonResponsive Opt-Ins failed timely to respond to defendants’ discovery requests, as required by this Court’s

Chambers Rules. Id. at p. 9.

27

28

4

3:13cv644L(KSC)

Case 3:13-cv-00644-L-KSC Document 188 Filed 11/23/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 7
1 failure to comply will result in dismissal of their claims with prejudice pursuant to

37(b)(2)(A).” Id. at p. 16. Defendants assert that the identified Non-Responsive Opt-Ins

are plaintiffs who “failed to submit discovery responses, and whom Plaintiffs’ counsel has

identified as non-responsive.” Id. at p. 8.

This Court finds good cause to provide the Non-Responsive Opt-Ins a final

opportunity to comply with their discovery obligations. Consequently, the Court

GRANTS defendants’ request to compel the Non-Responsive Opt-In plaintiffs to respond

to defendants’ written discovery requests within thirty days ofthe date ofthis Order. The

Court hereby notifies the Non-Responsive Opt-In plaintiffs and their counsel that failure

to respond to defendants’ written discovery requests within thirty days ofthe date ofthis

Order will result in this Court issuing a Report and Recommendation for dismissal ofthe

Nori-Responsive Opt-In plaintiffs’ claims with prejudice pursuant to Rule 37(b)(2)(A).

The Court ORDERS plaintiffs’ counsel, pursuant to FRCP 37(a)(3)(B), to personally

serve a copy of this Order on the Non-Responsive Opt-In plaintiffs, with return receipt

requested.

2

. 3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16 Regarding any anticipated future Joint Motions to Dismiss or Compel additional

Non-Responsive Opt-In plaintiffs [Doc. No. 179, pp. 7, 10], in the interest of judicial

efficiency, the Court hereby GRANTS the parties leave until on or before January 23,

2017 to file such a Motion. The parties shall file a single Joint Motion to Dismiss or Compel

the additional Non-Responsive Opt-In plaintiffs, limited to 20 pages or less. The parties

are required to have met and conferred pursuant to the District Local Rules, and this Court’s

Chamber Rules before filing the anticipated Joint Motion to Dismiss or Compel on or

before January 23,2017.

c) Plaintiffs’ Counsel’s Request To Withdraw As Counsel For Certain NonResponsive Opt-In Plaintiffs.

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26 To the extent that plaintiffs’ counsel seeks leave from the Court to withdraw as

counsel for certain Non-Responsive Opt-Ins [Doc. No. 179, p. 18], plaintiffs must file a

■27

28

5

3:13cv644L(KSC)

Case 3:13-cv-00644-L-KSC Document 188 Filed 11/23/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 7
separate motion before the District Court Judge assigned to this matter. Accordingly,

plaintiffs’ motion to withdraw as counsel for certain Non-Responsive Opt-Ins is DENIED

without prejudice.

1

2

3

4 III. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Joint Motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in

: 6 part. [Doc. No. 179.]

The Court DENIES defendants’ request to dismiss with prejudice the claims

of eighteen Non-Responsive Opt-In plaintiffs who have failed to timely

respond to Petco’s discovery requests. The Court notes that it does not have the

authority to dismiss the claims outright, but DENIES defendants’ request to

issue a Report and Recommendation to the District Judge recommending

dismissal ofthe Non-Responsive Opt-Ins’ claims.

The Court GRANTS defendants’ request to compel the Non-Responsive OptIn plaintiffs to respond to defendants’ written discovery requests within thirty

days ofthe date ofthis Order. The Court hereby notifies the Non-Responsive

Opt-In plaintiffs and their counsel that failure to respond to defendants’ written

discovery requests within thirty days ofthe date ofthis Order will result in this

Court issuing a Report and Recommendation for dismissal of the NonResponsive Opt-In plaintiffs’ claims with prejudice pursuant to 37(b)(2)(A).

The Court ORDERS plaintiffs’ counsel, pursuant to FRCP 37(a)(3)(B), to

personally serve a copy ofthis Order on each Non-Responsive Opt-In plaintiff,

with return receipt requested.

The Court GRANTS the parties leave until on or before January 23.2017 to

file a Joint Motion to Dismiss or Compel the additional Non-Responsive OptIn plaintiffs. The parties shall file a single Joint Motion to Dismiss or Compel

the additional Non-Responsive Opt-In plaintiffs, limited to 20 pages or less.

The Court DENIES without prejudice plaintiffs’ motion to withdraw as

counsel for certain Non-Responsive Opt-Ins.

7 1.

* 8

9

10

11

. 12

13 2.

14

15

16

17

18

.19

20

21

22

23 3.

24

25

26

27 4.

28

6

3:13cv644L(KSC)

Case 3:13-cv-00644-L-KSC Document 188 Filed 11/23/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 6 of 7
1 IT IS SO ORDERED.

2 Date: November 2016

3

.4

5 KAREN/S/CRAWFORD

United 'States Magistrate Judge 6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

. 20

21

22

*23

24

25

26

27 !

28

7

3:13cv644L(KSC)

Case 3:13-cv-00644-L-KSC Document 188 Filed 11/23/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 7 of 7