Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-00786/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-00786-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Betts Company
Defendant
Joseph Mar
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOSEPH MAR, individually, and on behalf 

of other members of the general public 

similarly situated,

Plaintiff,

v.

BETTS COMPANY, a California 

corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, 

inclusive,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:19-cv-00786-LJO-BAM

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND 

DENYING IN PART THIRD

STIPULATION TO CONTINUE THE 

DEADLINE TO FILE MOTION FOR 

PRELIMINARY APPROVAL

(Doc. No. 10)

On August 29, 2019, the parties filed a notice of settlement pursuant to Local Rule 160 

indicating that class action claims had been settled and requesting a deadline of November 1, 

2019, to file a motion for preliminary approval of the settlement. (Doc. No. 4.) On August 30, 

2019, the Court set a deadline for the motion of November 1, 2019, as requested by the parties. 

(Doc. No. 5.) On October 31, 2019, the parties filed a stipulation seeking to extend the deadline 

to file their motion to December 16, 2019, in order to allow them to finalize a long-form 

settlement agreement. (Doc. No. 6.) The Court granted the parties’ requested extension on 

November 7, 2019. (Doc. No. 7.) On December 16, 2019, the parties filed a second stipulation to 

further extend the deadline for a motion for preliminary approval of their settlement. (Doc. No. 

8.) The Court granted the parties’ second stipulation and extended the deadline to January 31, 

Case 1:19-cv-00786-NONE-BAM Document 12 Filed 02/04/20 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

2020. (Doc. No. 9.) In its order, the Court noted that the parties had failed to set forth the prior 

extension as required by Local Rule 144(b) and had filed their stipulation for an extension of time 

on the last day for filing the motion for preliminary approval of their settlement. The Court 

reminded the parties that Local Rule 144(b) requires requests for extensions of time to set forth 

the total period of extensions already obtained by the parties as to the particular matters for which 

the extension is sought. The Court further reminded the parties that, pursuant to Local Rule 

144(d), counsel is required to seek to obtain a necessary extension from the Court as soon as the 

need for an extension becomes apparent and requests for Court-approved extensions brought on 

the required filing date are looked upon with disfavor. Finally, the Court cautioned the parties 

that no further extensions of time would be granted in the absence of a demonstrated showing of 

good cause. 

Currently before the Court is the parties’ third stipulation, filed on January 31, 2020, to 

further extend the deadline to file a motion for preliminary approval of the settlement. (Doc. No. 

10.) According to the stipulation, the parties “have been working diligently to revise the 

settlement papers but require additional time to finalize and obtain signatures.” The stipulation 

also represents that “Plaintiff has already prepared drafts of the motion for preliminary approval 

and provided those to Defendant for its review.” The parties request that the deadline to file a 

motion for preliminary approval of the settlement be continued for thirty days.

The parties once again filed their stipulation on the required filing date for the motion for 

preliminary approval of their settlement. The stipulation also again fails to set forth all of the 

prior extensions obtained by the parties. Moreover, the parties have not explained why an 

additional thirty days is required to “finalize and obtain signatures” and file the motion which 

Plaintiff has drafted and provided to Defendant or why these tasks could not have been 

accomplished within the applicable deadline. The Court accordingly finds good cause to partially 

grant and partially deny the parties’ request. See L.R. 160(d) (“The Court may, on good cause 

shown, extend the time for filing . . . dispositional papers.”)

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the deadline to file a motion for 

preliminary approval of the parties’ settlement is HEREBY CONTINUED to February 14, 2020. 

Case 1:19-cv-00786-NONE-BAM Document 12 Filed 02/04/20 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

No further extensions of time shall be granted in the absence of a demonstrated showing of good 

cause, which will be narrowly construed. Failure to comply with this order may be grounds for 

the imposition of sanctions on counsel or parties who contributed to violation of this order. See 

L.R. 160, 272.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 3, 2020 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:19-cv-00786-NONE-BAM Document 12 Filed 02/04/20 Page 3 of 3