Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_23-cv-03028/USCOURTS-caed-2_23-cv-03028-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Hyatt Corporation
Defendant
Flor Jimenez
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 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

FLOR JIMENEZ, individually and 

on behalf of all others 

similarly situated, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

HYATT CORPORATION, a Delaware 

Corporation, 

 Defendant. 

No. 2:23-cv-03028-TLN-KJN 

AMENDED PRETRIAL SCHEDULING 

ORDER 

After reviewing the parties’ Joint Statement, the Court 

hereby amends the Pretrial Scheduling Order. 

I. SERVICE OF PROCESS 

All named Defendants have been served and no further service 

is permitted without leave of court, good cause having been 

shown. 

II. ADDITIONAL PARTIES/AMENDMENTS/PLEADINGS 

No joinder of parties or amendments to pleadings is 

permitted without leave of court, good cause having been shown. 

/// 

/// 

Case 2:23-cv-03028-TLN-CSK Document 16 Filed 04/30/24 Page 1 of 4
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 

III. JURISDICTION/VENUE 

Jurisdiction is predicated upon 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332(d)(2)(A). 

Jurisdiction and venue are not contested. 

PHASE I - CLASS CERTIFICATION 

IV. DISCOVERY 

The Court finds that bifurcation is necessary in order to 

best determine if the elements of class certification are met. 

Accordingly, the Court hereby bifurcates the discovery process. 

All discovery in Phase I shall be limited to facts that are 

relevant to whether this action should be certified as a class 

action and shall be completed within two hundred forty (240) 

days. In this context, “completed” means that all discovery 

shall have been conducted so that all depositions have been taken 

and any disputes relative to discovery shall have been resolved 

by appropriate order if necessary and, where discovery has been 

ordered, the order has been obeyed. All motions to compel 

discovery must be noticed on the magistrate judge’s calendar in 

accordance with the local rules of this Court. 

V. DISCLOSURE OF EXPERT WITNESSES 

All counsel are to designate in writing, file with the 

Court, and serve upon all other parties the name, address, and 

area of expertise of each expert that they propose to tender for 

class certification purposes not later than sixty (60) days after 

the close of discovery.1 The designation shall be accompanied by 

1 The discovery of experts will include whether any motions based on 

Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993) and/or 

Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 119 S. Ct. 1167 (1999) are anticipated. 

Case 2:23-cv-03028-TLN-CSK Document 16 Filed 04/30/24 Page 2 of 4
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 

a written report prepared and signed by the witness. The report 

shall comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(B). 

Within thirty (30) days after the designation of expert 

witnesses, any party may designate a supplemental list of expert 

witnesses who will express an opinion on a subject covered by an 

expert designated by an adverse party. The right to designate a 

supplemental expert for rebuttal purposes only shall apply to a 

party who has not previously disclosed an expert witness on the 

date set for expert witness disclosure by this Pretrial 

Scheduling Order. 

For purposes of this Pretrial Scheduling Order, an “expert” 

is any person who may be used for purposes of class certification 

or opposing class certification to present evidence under Rules 

702, 703, and 705 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, which include 

both “percipient experts” (persons who, because of their 

expertise, have rendered expert opinions in the normal course of 

their work duties or observations pertinent to the issues in the 

case) and “retained experts” (persons specifically designated by 

a party to be a testifying expert for the purposes of 

litigation). 

Each party shall identify whether a disclosed expert is 

percipient, retained, or both. It will be assumed that a party 

designating a retained expert has acquired the express permission 

of the witness to be so listed. Parties designating percipient 

experts must state in the designation who is responsible for 

arranging the deposition of such persons. 

All experts designated are to be fully prepared at the time 

of designation to render an informed opinion, and give their 

Case 2:23-cv-03028-TLN-CSK Document 16 Filed 04/30/24 Page 3 of 4
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 

4 

bases for their opinion, so that they will be able to give full 

and complete testimony at any deposition taken by the opposing 

party. 

VI. CLASS CERTIFICATION 

The Motion for Class Certification shall be filed no later 

than one hundred eighty (180) days after the close of 

certification discovery. The parties are responsible for 

ensuring that all motions are filed to allow for proper notice of 

the hearing under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and/or 

Local Rules. Local Rule 230 governs the calendaring and 

procedures of civil motions. 

Failure to comply with Local Rule 230(c), may be deemed 

consent to the motion and the Court may dispose of the motion 

summarily. 

VII. POST-CERTIFICATION CASE ACTIVITY 

All other necessary dates and deadlines will be set by a 

Supplemental Pretrial Scheduling Order to be issued following the 

Court’s ruling on Plaintiff’s Class Certification Motion. 

VIII. OBJECTIONS TO PRETRIAL SCHEDULING ORDER 

This Pretrial Scheduling Order will become final without 

further order of the Court unless objections are filed within 

fourteen (14) days of service of this Order. If the parties wish 

to modify the deadlines, they are directed to file a stipulation 

and proposed order the Court’s consideration. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: April 29, 2024 

Troy L. Nunley

United States District Judge

Case 2:23-cv-03028-TLN-CSK Document 16 Filed 04/30/24 Page 4 of 4