Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_05-cv-04004/USCOURTS-cand-4_05-cv-04004-9/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 446
Nature of Suit: Americans with Disabilities Act - Other
Cause of Action: 42:12101 Americans w/ Disabilities Act (ADA)

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LAWRENCE CELANO, RICHARD

THESING, and WILLIAM HEFFERON on

behalf of themselves and all others similarly

situated,

Plaintiffs, No. C 05-4004 PJH

v. ORDER RE ADMINISTRATIVE

MOTION TO SHORTEN TIME

MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL, INC., a

Delaware corporation,

Defendant.

_______________________________/

Before the court is defendant Marriott International’s administrative motion

requesting that the court hear a motion to stay plaintiffs’ motion for class certification on

shortened time. Plaintiffs’ class certification motion is currently pending, with a hearing

date set for December 13, 2006. Marriott’s opposition to the class certification motion is

due November 22, 2006.

Marriott asserts that its motion to stay should be heard on shortened time – and is

independently warranted – for three reasons: (1) Marriott has not yet had the opportunity to

depose named representative plaintiff William Hefferon, and cannot properly oppose

plaintiffs’ class certification motion without doing so; (2) Marriott has not yet had the

opportunity to depose eight class representatives who were disclosed for the first time in

connection with the filing of plaintiffs’ motion for class certification; and (3) any ruling by the

court on the motion for class certification must be deferred in order to allow Marriott to first

file a dispositive motion addressing the merits of plaintiffs’ complaint. 

The court is persuaded that Marriott has shown good cause regarding its need to

depose named class representative William Hefferon prior to the filing of its opposition

brief. Plaintiffs concede that, although they notified Marriott of their desire to add Mr.

Case 4:05-cv-04004-PJH Document 109 Filed 11/21/06 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

Hefferon as named class representative as far back as July, it was not until October 18,

2006, that plaintiffs filed an amended complaint actually doing so. Accordingly, it was not

until recently that Marriott had reason to officially rely on Mr. Hefferon’s status as named

class representative. The court also finds that Marriott has shown diligence in seeking to

depose Mr. Hefferon, that it is entitled to do depose him prior to filing its opposition to class

certification, and that it is entitled to rely on that deposition testimony in connection with the

filing of its opposition. 

By contrast, Marriott has failed to show good cause regarding its need to depose the

eight putative class members whose identities were disclosed via submitted declarations in

connection with the filing of plaintiffs’ class certification motion. As plaintiffs point out in

their opposition to Marriott’s administrative motion, Marriott’s claim of need is seriously

undermined by its failure to question or depose any of the fourteen putative class members

whose identities were disclosed as far back as seven months ago, many of whose

declarations were also submitted in connection with plaintiffs’ motion for class certification. 

In view of these facts, Marriott cannot now seriously contend that its need for the additional

depositions is critical, or that it must rely on such depositions prior to the filing of its

opposition to class certification.

Finally, Marriott contends that a stay is necessary in order for Marriott to first file a

motion for summary judgment, which Marriott claims would allow for a dispositive ruling on

the merits of the case, and should therefore take precedence over the pending motion for

class certification. Unlike the previous two issues, however, this issue does not lend itself

to ready analysis, and the court prefers to consider it after both sides have had an

opportunity to fully brief it. Accordingly, with respect to this limited issue, the court will allow

Marriott’s motion to stay to go forward, although the court will not hold a hearing on the

motion. Rather, the court will give plaintiffs an opportunity to file an opposition to Marriott’s

motion to stay on this limited issue, and Marriott will be granted an opportunity to reply. 

The motion will be submitted on the papers, and the court’s ruling on the matter shall issue

Case 4:05-cv-04004-PJH Document 109 Filed 11/21/06 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

without a hearing. 

Accordingly, and in light of the above, the court hereby orders as follows:

1. Marriott’s request to shorten time for a motion to stay, on grounds that it has

not yet had the opportunity to depose named class representative Mr.

Hefferon, is DENIED. Rather, and in view of the November 29, 2006

scheduled date for Mr. Hefferon’s deposition, the court grants Marriott until

December 6, 2006, to file its opposition to plaintiffs’ motion for class

certification. Plaintiffs shall file their reply in support of the motion for class

certification by December 13, 2006. The hearing on plaintiffs’ class

certification motion will be CONTINUED, however, pending the court’s

substantive ruling on Marriott’s motion to stay regarding the summary

judgment issue. A hearing date will be scheduled after the court rules on the

motion to stay.

2. Marriott’s request to shorten time for a motion to stay, on grounds that it has

not yet had the opportunity to depose eight class representatives who were

disclosed for the first time in connection with the filing of plaintiffs’ motion for

class certification, is DENIED for failure to demonstrate good cause. 

3. Marriott’s request to shorten time for a motion to stay, on grounds that the

court should defer the motion for class certification to accommodate Marriott’s

dispositive motion first, is GRANTED. Plaintiff shall file an opposition to the

motion to stay, on these limited grounds, no later than December 4, 2006. 

Marriott shall file its reply, if any, no later than December 6, 2006. The motion

shall be submitted on the papers. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 21, 2006 ______________________________

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

Case 4:05-cv-04004-PJH Document 109 Filed 11/21/06 Page 3 of 3