Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-02052/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-02052-27/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 790
Nature of Suit: Other Labor Litigation
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WILLIAM HELM, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

ALDERWOODS GROUP, INC,

Defendant. /

No. C 08-01184 SI

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S

MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF

BRIEFING AND HEARING SCHEDULE,

AND DENYING DEFENDANT’S

REQUEST TO TAKE ADDITIONAL

DISCOVERY

Plaintiffs’ renewed motion for class certification is presently set for hearing on September 10,

2010. Alderwoods has filed a request to extend the briefing and hearing schedule on the motion by three

weeks. In view of the length of the motion and accompanying papers, Alderwoods states that it requires

additional time to respond, and the Court finds that this is an appropriate reason for granting the

requested extension. Additionally, the motion for class certification filed in the related Bryant action

is also set to be heard on September 10. Continuing the hearing on the motion filed in this case will

therefore allow full but separate consideration of the motions. Alderwoods’ motion to extend time is

accordingly GRANTED, and the briefing and hearing schedule on plaintiffs’ renewed motion for class

certification is modified as follows:

Opposition: September 10, 2010

Reply: September 17, 2010

Hearing: October 1, 2010

Alderwoods has also requested leave to conduct an additional 15 depositions with respect to

plaintiffs’ “On-Call” class. Alderwoods asserts that the definition of this class is “significantly

different” from the definition given in plaintiffs’ first certification motion, and contends that it will be

Case 3:11-cv-02052-JM-KSC Document 266 Filed 08/11/10 Page 1 of 2
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

denied due process if it is not given the opportunity to conduct additional discovery. After reviewing

both motions for class certification, however, the Court agrees with plaintiffs that the definition of the

On-Call class has simply been narrowed. Plaintiffs asserted the piece rate theory they now advance

during the first round of briefing, and the Court addressed the theory in ruling on the motion.

Alderwoods has had ample opportunity to conduct discovery on plaintiffs’ piece rate theory, and the

Court does not believe that additional depositions are justified at this time. The request for leave to

conduct 15 additional depositions is therefore DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 11, 2010 

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:11-cv-02052-JM-KSC Document 266 Filed 08/11/10 Page 2 of 2