Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-02906/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-02906-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition For Removal--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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

STEVE JUHLINE, individually and on

behalf of all others similarly situated,

Plaintiff,

v.

BEN BRIDGE-JEWELER, INC., a

Washington corporation,

Defendant.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 3:11-cv-2906-GPC-NLS

ORDER:

(1) DEFERRING RULING ON

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR

PARTIAL SUMMARY

JUDGMENT, (ECF NO. 48);

(2) SETTING BRIEFING

SCHEDULES, (ECF NOS. 50, 51)

In this certified class action, plaintiff Steve Juhline (“Plaintiff”) alleges

defendant Ben Bridge-Jeweler, Inc.’s (“Defendant”) practice of requesting and

recording the contact information of its customers who pay with a credit card violates

California’s Song-Beverly Credit Card Act, California Civil Code section 1747.08

(“Credit Card Act”). 

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion forPartial Summary Judgment (“Plaintiff’s

MSJ”), (ECF No. 48), which has been fully briefed, (ECF Nos. 52, 57). Plaintiff’s MSJ

is set for a hearing on April 18, 2014. Also before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for

Approval of Class Notice Plan (“Plaintiff’s Notice Motion”), (ECF No. 50), and

Defendant’s Motion to DecertifyClass (“Defendant’s Motion to Decertify”), (ECF No.

51). Plaintiff’s Notice Motion and Defendant’s Motion to Decertify are set for a

3:11-cv-2906-GPC-NLS

Case 3:11-cv-02906-GPC-NLS Document 63 Filed 04/17/14 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

hearing on May 16, 2014, and neither of these motions has been fully briefed.

In its Opposition to Plaintiff’s MSJ, Defendant requests that the Court defer

ruling on Plaintiff’s MSJ until after the Court decides Defendant’s Motion to Decertify

and, if the Court denies Defendant’s Motion to Decertify, then defer ruling on

Plaintiff’s MSJ until after the Court decides Plaintiff’s Notice Motion.

“[D]istrict courts generally do not grant summary judgment on the merits of a

class action until the class has been properly certified and notified.” Schwarzschild v.

Tse, 60 F.3d 293, 295 (9th Cir. 1995) (emphasis added). “Absent extraordinary

circumstances, it is appropriate to postpone ruling on a plaintiff’s motion for summary

judgment until after class definition issues are settled, notice has been given, and the

period for class members to exclude themselves has expired . . . .” Gomez v. Rossi

Concrete Inc., 2011 WL 666888, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 17, 2011) (Moskowitz, J.). 

Citing the following cases, Plaintiff argues Defendant waived its right to ask the

Court to defer ruling on Plaintiff’s MSJ: Schwarzschild, 69 F.3d at 295 (“[B]y

obtaining summary judgment before the class has been certified and notice has been

sent, the defendants waived any right to compel the plaintiff to notify the class of the

pending action.” (emphasis added)); Wright v. Schock, 742 F.2d 541, 544 (9th Cir.

1984) (“Where the defendant assumesthe risk thatsummary judgment in his favor will

have only stare decisis effect on the members of the putative class, it is within the

discretion of the district court to rule on the [defendant’s] summary judgment motion

[before class certification].”).

Here, Defendant unsuccessfully moved for summary judgment prior to class

certification. Thus, no findings of liability have been made. Further, it is Plaintiff, not

Defendant, that is moving for summary judgment as to the now-certified class. As

such, the circumstancesin Schwarzchild and Wright in which a defendant was deemed

to have waived its right to request deferral are not present here. The certified class has

not been notified, and Defendant has moved to decertify the class. Other than delay,

Plaintiff does not assert he or the Class will be prejudiced if the Court were to defer

2 3:11-cv-2906-GPC-NLS

Case 3:11-cv-02906-GPC-NLS Document 63 Filed 04/17/14 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

ruling on Plaintiff’s MSJ. Given these facts, the Court, in its discretion, will defer

ruling on Plaintiff’s MSJ until class certification and notice issues have been resolved.

Based on the foregoing, ITISHEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s MSJ, (ECF

No. 48), is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Plaintiff may re-file his MSJ after

Defendant’s Motion to Decertify has been decided and, if appropriate, after class notice

has been provided, and the period for class members to exclude themselves has

expired. See Gomez, 2011 WL 666888, at *2 (denying without prejudice plaintiff’s

motion for summary judgment upon defendant’s request to defer ruling until after class

definition issues were settled, class notice was given, and time for class members to

exclude themselves expired). The hearing on Plaintiff’s MSJ, currently set for April

18, 2014, is VACATED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties comply with the following

BRIEFING SCHEDULE as to Plaintiff’s Notice Motion, (ECF No. 50), and

Defendant’s Motion to Decertify, (ECF No. 51): any response to these motions shall

be filed on or before April 25, 2014, and any reply shall be filed on or before May 2,

2014.

DATED: April 17, 2014

HON. GONZALO P. CURIEL

United States District Judge

3 3:11-cv-2906-GPC-NLS

Case 3:11-cv-02906-GPC-NLS Document 63 Filed 04/17/14 Page 3 of 3