Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_12-cv-03897/USCOURTS-cand-4_12-cv-03897-17/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 470
Nature of Suit: Civil (Rico)
Cause of Action: 18:1962 Racketeering (RICO) Act

---

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 

Northern District of Californi

a

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DIANA ELLIS, et al., 

Plaintiffs, 

 vs. 

J.P. MORGAN CHASE & CO., et al., 

Defendants. 

Case No.: 12-cv-03897- YGR 

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ REQUEST TO 

FILE RENEWED MOTION FOR CLASS 

CERTIFICATION

On December 17, 2015 the Court denied Plaintiffs’1 motion for class certification, finding 

Plaintiffs failed to make a threshold showing of commonality under Rule 23(a)(2). (Dkt. No. 

224.) Plaintiffs now request the Court allow them leave to file a renewed motion for class 

certification as set forth by Plaintiffs in the parties’ updated joint case management statement 

(Dkt. No. 229) and orally on the record at the January 25, 2016 case management conference (Dkt. 

No. 235). Defendants, naturally, oppose. (See Dkt. Nos. 229, 235.) 

The decision whether to grant Plaintiffs leave is within the sound discretion of the Court. 

Dukes v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 2012 WL 4329009, at *4 (N.D.Cal. Sept. 21, 2012) (“district 

courts have ample discretion to consider (or decline to consider) a revised class certification 

motion after an initial denial”) (internal quotations omitted). “Repeat motions for class 

certification are not routinely allowed.” Lanovaz v. Twinings North America, Inc., 2014 WL 

7204757, at *1 (N.D.Cal. Dec. 17, 2014) (alterations to capitalization). The Court has reviewed 

the pleadings and record in this matter and finds that granting Plaintiffs’ request would not be 

appropriate under the circumstances. Plaintiffs have provided no justification for their belated 

 1

 All terms shall have the same meaning as defined in the Court’s order denying class 

certification. (Dkt. No. 224.) 

Case 4:12-cv-03897-YGR Document 236 Filed 02/09/16 Page 1 of 2
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 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

attempt to seek certification of narrower classes to proceed on refashioned theories of liability. 

Rather, the only changed circumstance is that Plaintiffs now have the benefit of the Court’s order 

denying their earlier motion. Plaintiffs could have raised this alternative class definition in their 

original motion, but instead chose to seek certification of a much broader class based on a blanket 

theory of wrongdoing. Indeed, Plaintiffs’ claims have transformed repeatedly and significantly 

since the initial complaint was filed. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Court has considered the 

proffer in light of the evidence previously submitted and finds the request futile. Thus, the Court 

declines to provide yet another opportunity for Plaintiffs to litigate the latest incarnation of the 

theory of their case. Plaintiffs’ request is DENIED. 

In light of the Court’s ruling, the parties shall meet and confer with respect to Defendants’ 

request to file a motion for summary judgment. The parties shall file a stipulated briefing 

schedule on Defendants’ proposed motion no later than February 16, 2016. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: February 9, 2016 

_______________________________________ YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

Case 4:12-cv-03897-YGR Document 236 Filed 02/09/16 Page 2 of 2