Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-00165/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-00165-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 15:2301 Magnuson-Moss Warranty 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

- 1 -

Case No. 3:15-cv-00165-L-AGS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

This order supersedes the order filed November 17, 2016 (doc. no. 137). 

In this putative consumer class action, the parties contacted the Court 

pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7.1 with requests for hearing dates. Plaintiffs intend 

to file a motion to certify a class action. On March 3, 2017, Defendant filed a 

motion for partial summary judgment. In addition, Defendant intends to file 

another summary judgment motion and a Daubert motion. They request a briefing 

schedule to accommodate orderly and efficient briefing.

The pending request warrants a context. Plaintiffs had previously filed a 

motion for class certification. Shortly thereafter he parties encountered discovery 

disputes. On September 21, 2016, Defendant filed an ex parte application, seeking 

to extend the time to file its opposition to the class certification motion and 

CHAYLA CLAY et al., 

Plaintiffs,

v.

CYTOSPORT, INC., a California 

corporation, 

Defendant.

Case No: 3:15-cv-00165-L- AGS

ORDER REGARDING BRIEFING 

PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR 

CLASS CERTIFICATION AND 

DEFENDANT'S SUMMARY 

JUDGMENT AND DAUBERT

MOTIONS [Doc. no. 152]

Case 3:15-cv-00165-L-AGS Document 154 Filed 03/09/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 5
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

- 2 -

Case No. 3:15-cv-00165-L-AGS

continue the class certification schedule because it wanted discovery to respond to 

expert declarations filed in support of class certification, but the parties could not 

agree if Defendant was entitled to it. (Doc. no. 121.) The application was 

vehemently opposed. (Doc. no. 122.) Plaintiffs indicated that if Defendant was 

permitted to depose Plaintiffs' experts, then they wanted an opportunity to re-file 

their motion after the depositions. (Opp'n at 5 n.7.) Defendant filed an involved 

reply. (Doc. no. 123.) The Court referred the discovery dispute to the assigned 

Magistrate Judge, see 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1)(A) & Civ. Loc. Rule 72.1(b), the 

hearing date for the class certification motion was vacated, Plaintiffs' class 

certification motion was denied without prejudice to accommodate their request to 

re-file after expert depositions, if any, and the parties were ordered to file a status 

report no later than five days after the Magistrate Judge's disposition of the 

discovery dispute. (Doc. no. 124.) On October 19, 2016, class certification 

discovery was reopened to allow Defendant to depose Plaintiffs' experts. (See doc. 

no. 128.) On November 16, 2016, the parties jointly requested a continuance of 

class certification deadlines and proposed a briefing schedule to allow more time 

for briefing. (See doc. no. 135.) Court largely granted the request, and set March 

3, 2017 as the due date for Plaintiffs' renewed class certification motion. (See doc. 

no. 137.)

As the March 3 due date approached, Defendant expressed the intention to 

file summary judgment and Daubert motions. Defendant's pending summary 

judgment motion attacks named Plaintiffs' standing and the merits of some, but not 

all claims alleged. The Defendant intends to file another summary judgment 

motion relating to the claims asserted by Chris Roman, a putative class 

representative Plaintiffs intend to join.1 Mr. Roman has been deposed, but his 

 

1 On December 19, 2016, Plaintiffs filed a motion to intervene seeking to join 

Chris Roman as a putative class representative. Defendant agreed to not oppose 

the motion. (Doc. no. 143.) On January 9, 2017, the Court approved the 

stipulation. (Doc. no. 144.) Although the parties had apparently agreed, Plaintiffs 

Case 3:15-cv-00165-L-AGS Document 154 Filed 03/09/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 5
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

- 3 -

Case No. 3:15-cv-00165-L-AGS

transcript has not been signed. Defendant waits for Mr. Roman's signature and any 

corrections before filing the motion. Finally, Defendant intends to file a Daubert

motion to attack the experts who provided evidence in support of class 

certification. 

Plaintiffs request that their class certification motion and Defendant's 

summary judgment motions be briefed concurrently rather than consecutively 

because Defendant's motions, even if granted, would not dispose of all the claims 

as to which class certification is sought, are relevant to viability of class 

certification, and are directly relevant to the adequacy and typicality elements of 

class certification. See Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 23. Plaintiffs object to Defendant filing 

a separate summary judgment motion as to Mr. Roman. They argue that the issues 

Defendant intends to raise on summary judgment should be raised in opposition to 

class certification instead. 

Defendant requests the Court to set a due date for Mr. Roman to sign his 

deposition transcript with corrections, if any. It seeks leave to file the second 

summary judgment motion fourteen (14) days after receiving the signed transcript. 

Defendant offers to consolidate its pending and planned second summary judgment 

motions in one brief.2

In the interests of justice and in furtherance of orderly and efficient briefing 

of the pending and upcoming motions, IT IS ORDERED as follows:

1. Plaintiffs shall file their class certification motion, if any, no later than 

March 15, 2017.

2. No later than March 15, 2017, Plaintiffs shall serve Defendant with 

Mr. Roman's signed deposition transcript with corrections, as any. In the absence 

of compliance with this Order, the transcript shall be deemed corrected and signed 

 

to date have not filed an amended complaint naming Mr. Roman. 

2 Neither party has addressed the issue whether there are any claims asserted 

by Mr. Roman at all, as Plaintiffs have not joined him to date.

Case 3:15-cv-00165-L-AGS Document 154 Filed 03/09/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 5
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

- 4 -

Case No. 3:15-cv-00165-L-AGS

by Mr. Roman in its present condition.

2. Defendant shall brief the issues raised in the pending summary 

judgment motion or planned to be raised in the proposed summary judgment and 

Daubert motions, if any, in the memorandum of points and authorities filed in 

opposition to Plaintiffs' motion for class certification, if any. The brief may be 

styled as a combined opposition, motion for summary adjudication, and Daubert

motion, as appropriate in light of the requested relief. The brief shall not exceed 

45 pages in length. Defendant's brief shall be filed no later than April 5, 2017.

3. Defendant's pending summary judgment motion (doc. no. 151) is 

DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to including the same arguments and 

requests for relief in Defendant's opposition to Plaintiffs' class certification motion

as provided herein.

4. No later than April 26, 2017, Plaintiffs shall file their reply in support 

of class certification and opposition to any summary judgment and/or Daubert 

motions Defendant joined with its opposition to class certification. The reply and 

opposition, if any, shall be briefed in one combined memorandum of points and 

authorities, which shall not exceed 35 pages in length.

5. No later than May 3, 2017, Defendant shall file a reply in support of 

its summary adjudication and/or Daubert motions. The brief shall not exceed 20 

pages in length.

6. Upon filing the foregoing, the motions will be deemed submitted. 

There shall be no oral argument unless requested by the Court. See Civ. Loc. Rule 

7.1.d. The parties need not contact chambers to secure hearing dates for the 

motions addressed by this Order.

7. In all other respects, the parties shall comply with the applicable 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Federal Rules of Evidence, Civil Local Rules of 

this District and the Standing Order for Civil Cases of this Court, including the 

Case 3:15-cv-00165-L-AGS Document 154 Filed 03/09/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 5
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

- 5 -

Case No. 3:15-cv-00165-L-AGS

standing orders regarding telephone calls to chambers, motion briefing, and 

summary judgment briefing.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 9, 2017

Case 3:15-cv-00165-L-AGS Document 154 Filed 03/09/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 5