Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-01842/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-01842-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Petition for Removal

---

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 - 07cv1842

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOEL M. CRAM, MINH D. NGUYEN, and

ROES 1 through 10, individually, and on

behalf of all others similarly situated,

Plaintiffs,

CASE NO. 07cv1842-LAB (NLS)

ORDER GRANTING EX PARTE

APPLICATION FOR MOTION

HEARING CONTINUANCE

[Dkt No. 31]

vs.

ELECTRONIC DATA SYSTEMS

CORPORATION, a Delaware

corporation, and DOES 1 through 100,

inclusive,

Defendants.

This matter is before the court on Plaintiffs' Ex Parte Application To Continue Hearing

On Plaintiffs' Motion For Remand in this putative class action asserting violations of the

California Labor and Business and Professions Codes. 

Defendant Electronic Data Systems Corporation ("EDS") removed the action to

federal court on September 20, 2007 in reliance on federal jurisdiction allegedly conferred

pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)) ("CAFA"), diversity

of citizenship, and 28 U.,S.C. §§ 1441(a), 1446. Plaintiffs filed a Motion For Remand on

September 25, 2007, with a November 13, 2007 hearing date. Plaintiffs represent they filed

the remand motion "at the earliest possible date" to avoid adjudication of "any merits issue

prior to determining whether [the court] has subject matter jurisdiction," but with the intention

"to simultaneously seek pre-hearing discovery by ex parte application" and, if necessary, to

Case 3:07-cv-01842-LAB-NLS Document 44 Filed 11/14/07 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

- 2 - 07cv1842

"seek a continuance of the hearing on the [Remand] Motion to permit Plaintiffs to utilize the

products of such" discovery. Dkt No. 4, 5:10-14. Plaintiffs applied ex parte to the magistrate

judge assigned to this case, Hon. Nita L. Stormes, also on September 25, 2007, for leave

to conduct discovery in advance of the remand hearing. The parties do not dispute two of

the three CAFA requirements for federal jurisdiction over this dispute are satisfied (i.e., size

of the putative class and diversity of citizenship), but they dispute the amount in controversy.

EDS alleges with a demonstration in its Notice of Removal that the amount the Complaint

places in controversy exceeds $10,000,000, plus attorneys' fees and expenses. Plaintiffs

contend the $5,000,000 threshold for federal CAFA jurisdiction is not satisfied. 

By Order entered October 3, 2007, Judge Stormes granted Plaintiffs' request for leave

to conduct jurisdictional discovery on the amount in controversy issue, over EDS's

opposition. Dkt No. 18. However, she reasonably limited "not only the scope and duration

of jurisdictional discovery," but also restricted "the discovery method to the use of

interrogatories only, in the interest of judicial economy and in an effort to lessen the burden

that this discovery may place on the parties." Dkt No. 18, 7:9-12. She authorized each side

to propound a single set of interrogatories not to exceed ten (10) in number, directed

specifically towards establishing the amount in controversy. She ordered the expedited

discovery be completed within thirty (30) days of the date of her Order. Dkt No. 18, 7:18-20.

In consideration of that discovery authorization, the undersigned District Judge

continued the hearing of Plaintiff's Motion To Remand from November 13, 2007 to

December 3, 2007. Dkt No. 22. The briefing schedule was correspondingly continued, so

that EDS' Opposition is currently due November 19, 2007 and Plaintiffs' Reply

November 26, 2007. Plaintiffs' counsel, David J. Gallo, Esq., now moves ex parte to

continue the hearing date and briefing schedule for three weeks or, alternatively, for five

weeks. He represents the requested three-week extension is not opposed by defense

counsel, in consideration of surgery he learned on October 31, 2007 he needs to undergo

shortly before Plaintiffs' Reply papers are due to be filed, with a recovery period anticipated

to last approximately ten (10) days before resumption of half-time work and fourteen (14) to

Case 3:07-cv-01842-LAB-NLS Document 44 Filed 11/14/07 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

- 3 - 07cv1842

twenty-one (21) days before resumption of full-time work. Mr. Gallo represents EDS

opposes the alternative five-week continuance. He seeks the longer, alternative

continuance on the basis of a possible need for a supplemental response period after Judge

Stormes' December 11, 2007 hearing of Plaintiffs' Motion To Compel addressing two of the

interrogatories. EDS counsel has telephonically confirmed the accuracy of Mr. Gallo's

representations of its position and joins in Mr. Gallo's request that should any continuance

be granted, the remand motion briefing schedule be correspondingly continued. 

For good cause shown, and in consideration of the non-opposition to a three-week

continuance, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED the hearing of Plaintiffs' Motion To Remand is

continued a second time, from December 3, 2007 to December 31, 2007 at 10:30 a.m., with

a corresponding continuance of the Civ.L.R. 7.1(e) briefing schedule. IT IS FURTHER

ORDERED no further continuances of the remand motion hearing will be granted absent a

showing of extraordinary good cause. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: November 13, 2007

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-01842-LAB-NLS Document 44 Filed 11/14/07 Page 3 of 3