Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-02449/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-02449-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 370
Nature of Suit: Other Fraud
Cause of Action: 28:1332pi Diversity-Personal Injury

---

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

30

31

32

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TASNEEM L. MOHAMED, 

Plaintiff,

v.

KELLOGG COMPANY,

Defendant.

Case No. 3:14-cv-02449-L-MDD

ORDER DENYING JOINT MOTION

TO CONTINUE CLASS 

CERTIFICATION BRIEFING

Pending before the Court in this putative consumer class action alleging false and 

misleading food labeling is the Joint Motion to Continue Class Certification Briefing 

Schedule. For the reasons stated below, the motion is denied.

Plaintiff's initial motion to certify a class action was denied without prejudice on 

March 23, 2019, based on Comcast Corp v. Behrend, 569 U.S. 27 (2013), and Vaquero v. 

Ashley Furniture Indus., 824 F.3d 1150 (9th Cir. 2016), because Plaintiff's proposed model 

of damages did not meet the predominance requirement of Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 23(b)(3). (Doc. no. 88.) Plaintiff was granted leave to file another class 

certification motion supported by adequate proof. (Id.) Plaintiff timely filed her renewed 

motion on May 22, 2019. (Doc. no. 89.)

Case 3:14-cv-02449-L-MDD Document 104 Filed 11/08/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 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

30

31

32

On June 4, 2019, the parties filed a joint motion to extend the time for the 

opposition and reply briefs to conduct expert discovery because Plaintiff's damages expert 

had submitted a new report, and both parties wanted to conduct additional expert 

depositions. (Doc. no. 93.) The joint motion did not explain why the parties did not 

complete this discovery in the preceding two and a half months. Accordingly, their 

request was denied. (Doc. no. 94.) They resubmitted their motion. (Doc. no. 95.) While 

they did not explain their lack of progress to date, they explained the press of business that 

would prevent them from completing the expert discovery in less than the requested five 

weeks. Before the Court ruled on this request, they filed another motion, this time 

seeking an extension of time until October 31, 2019, on the alternative ground that they 

wanted to attend mediation. (Doc. no. 96.) 

Based on the stated intent to pursue mediation, the Court granted the latter request. 

(Doc. no. 97.) On September 23, 2019, the parties filed another request for an extension 

of time because the defense counsel could not attend mediation which had been set for 

August 28, 2019, and the new mediation date was October 9, 2019. They wanted an 

additional 45 days after mediation to prepare their opposition and reply briefs if the case 

did not settle. (Doc. no. 99.) The Court granted the request, extending the due date for 

Defendant's opposition until November 22, 2019, and Plaintiff's reply until January 3, 

2020. (Doc. no. 100.) 

On October 15, 2019, the parties filed a joint status report informing the Court that 

the case did not settle in mediation, but they continued their negotiations through the 

mediator. (Doc. no. 102.) On November 6, 2019, they filed the pending joint motion for 

an extension of time on the grounds that following the October 9, 2019 mediation, the 

parties attempted to schedule expert depositions, but could not schedule Plaintiff's expert's 

deposition until December 2, 2019. They request extending the briefing due dates by a 

month, with Defendant's opposition due December 20, 2019, and Plaintiff's reply on 

January 31, 2010. (Doc. no. 103.)

Case 3:14-cv-02449-L-MDD Document 104 Filed 11/08/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 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

30

31

32

The parties have the burden of showing good cause pursuant to Federal Rule of 

Civil Procedure 6(b) to warrant the requested extension. They have provided no reason 

why they have not completed damages expert discovery during the last six months. 

Surely the expert opinions were relevant for settlement negotiations and would be needed 

for class action settlement approval, if the case had settled. 

The parties have not shown good cause for the requested extension. The Joint 

Motion to Continue Class Certification Briefing Schedule is denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 8, 2019

Case 3:14-cv-02449-L-MDD Document 104 Filed 11/08/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3