Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-00902/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-00902-22/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 790
Nature of Suit: Other Labor Litigation
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Account Receivable

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

----oo0oo----

LIONEL HARPER and DANIEL 

SINCLAIR, individually and on 

behalf of all others similarly 

situated and all aggrieved 

employees,

Plaintiff,

v.

CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS, LLC,

Defendant.

No. 2:19-cv-00902 WBS DMC

ORDER

----oo0oo----

On April 4, 2021, plaintiffs filed a Motion for Class 

Certification, and noticed it for hearing on June 1, 2021. 

(Docket No. 115.) Pursuant to a stipulated amendment to the

court’s scheduling order, defendant Charter Communications, LLC

(“Charter”) must file its Opposition to plaintiff’s Motion no 

later than May 3, 2021. (Docket No. 104.) On April 16, 2021, 

plaintiffs filed a separate Motion for Leave to File a Second 

Amended Complaint. (Pl.’s Mot. to Modify the Scheduling Order & 

Case 2:19-cv-00902-WBS-DMC Document 127 Filed 04/23/21 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

for Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint (“Pl.’s Mot. for 

Leave to File SAC”) (Docket No. 121).) This Motion is also set 

for hearing on June 1, 2021, and Charter’s Opposition is due May 

18, 2021, fifteen days after its Opposition to plaintiffs’ Motion 

for Class Certification is due. (Id.) Charter has filed an ex 

parte application to vacate the hearing on plaintiffs’ Motion for 

Class Certification until their Motion to File a Second Amended 

Complaint has been resolved. (Docket No. 123.) 

Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended 

Complaint seeks to add three additional named plaintiffs, all of 

whom allegedly held different positions at Charter than the named 

plaintiffs in the operative complaint, Lionel Harper and Daniel 

Sinclair (i.e., “Direct Sales Reps” as opposed to “Account 

Executives”). (See Pl.’s Mot. for Leave to File SAC at 8, 10.) 

Plaintiff’s Motion also seeks to amend the class allegations, 

class definitions, and allegations regarding Harper and 

Sinclair’s personal claims. (See generally id.) 

Because the court will have to assess whether the 

claims of the named plaintiffs in this case are typical of those 

of the proposed class, and whether the named plaintiffs will 

fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class, when it 

evaluates plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification, see Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 23(a)(3)-(4), the court’s analysis (and the content of 

Charter’s Opposition) will necessarily depend on the outcome of 

plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint. 

See Comcast Corp. v. Behrend, 569 U.S. 27, 33 (2013) 

(“certification is proper only if ‘the trial court is satisfied, 

after a rigorous analysis, that the prerequisites of Rule 23(a) 

Case 2:19-cv-00902-WBS-DMC Document 127 Filed 04/23/21 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

have been satisfied” (quoting Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 

U.S. 338, 350 (2011))). 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the hearing on plaintiffs’

Motion for Class Certification (Docket No. 115) be, and the same 

hereby is, VACATED, subject to the motion being renewed after the 

court has resolved plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to File a Second 

Amended Complaint (Docket No. 121).

Dated: April 22, 2021

Case 2:19-cv-00902-WBS-DMC Document 127 Filed 04/23/21 Page 3 of 3