Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-00351/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-00351-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Other Contract

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RAMSES GUTIERREZ, individually 

and on behalf of all others similarly 

situated, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

CARTER BROTHERS SECURITY 

SERVICES, LLC, AT&T DIGITAL LIFE, 

INC., PACIFIC BELL TELEPHONE 

COMPANY dba AT&T DATACOMM, 

INC., AT&T CORP., and DOES 1 

through 10, inclusive,

Defendants.

No. 2:14-cv-00351-MCE-CKD

ORDER

Plaintiffs filed their Motion to Conditionally Certify a Class Action in this matter on 

August 19, 2014. ECF No. 54. Thereafter, on October 2, 2014, the Court issued, 

pursuant to the parties’ stipulation, an Order (ECF No. 60) staying the Class Certification 

Motion until resolution of three other motions then pending: 1) Defendant Carter 

Brothers’ Motion to Dismiss, or Alternatively to Transfer (ECF No. 33); 2) Carter 

Brothers’ Motion to Compel Arbitration and Dismiss Proceedings (ECF No. 34); and 3) 

Defendant AT&T’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 32). 

///

///

Case 2:14-cv-00351-MCE-CKD Document 68 Filed 03/20/15 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

27

28

2

On October 30, 2014, the Court issued a Memorandum and Order (ECF No. 61) 

denying AT&Ts’ Motion to Dismiss. The following day, October 30, 2014, an additional 

Memorandum and Order (ECF No. 62) denied Carter Brothers’ two motions seeking to 

transfer this matter and to compel arbitration. Subsequently, on November 24, 2014, 

Carter Brothers filed a Notice of Interlocutory Appeal with the Ninth Circuit as to the 

Court’s October 30, 2014, Memorandum and Order.

Given the fact that the now pending appeal will delay any final resolution of Carter 

Brothers’ Motions for the foreseeable future, since the Court’s stay of Plaintiff’s Class 

Certification Motion will remain in effect until such resolution, and given the length of time 

Plaintiff’s certification request has already been pending, for purposes of managing its 

own docket, the Court hereby DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion to Conditionally Certify (ECF 

No. 54) without prejudice to refiling once Carter Brothers’ appeal has been adjudicated.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 20, 2015

Case 2:14-cv-00351-MCE-CKD Document 68 Filed 03/20/15 Page 2 of 2