Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-01659/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-01659-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Kyle Bacchi
Plaintiff
Target Corporation
Defendant

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

KYLE BACCHI, on behalf of 

himself and a class of others 

similarly situated,

Plaintiffs,

v.

TARGET CORPORATION, a 

Minnesota corporation; and 

DOES 1 through 25, inclusive,

 Defendants.

No. 2:13-cv-01659-GEB-KJN

STATUS (PRETRIAL SCHEDULING) 

ORDER

The parties’ Joint Status Report (“JSR”) filed November 

25, 2013, reveals this case is not ready to be scheduled. The 

parties state in the JSR concerning possible amendment as 

follows:

1. Plaintiff’s Statement

Counsel for Plaintiff has informed 

counsel for Defendant that Plaintiff intended 

to limit the class to the location where 

Plaintiff worked. Namely in Paragraph 16, 

Plaintiff states: [“]Numerosity. (Code Civ. 

Proc., § 382.) The Class is so numerous (on 

information and belief, in excess of 15 

members)[”]

Plaintiff’s counsel has requested 

counsel for defendant to stipulate to remand 

the matter to state Court in light of the 

inadvertence. Counsel for Defendant refuses 

to stipulate. Should the Court not remand 

this matter sua sponte, Plaintiff intends to 

file a Motion to Dismiss without prejudice 

under FRCP 41 (a)(2) and refile the matter in 

Case 2:13-cv-01659-GEB-KJN Document 7 Filed 12/03/13 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

state court with the limiting language. In 

the alternative, Plaintiff will file a First 

Amended Complaint.

2. Target’s Statement

Target’s counsel communicated to 

plaintiff’s counsel its potential willingness 

to stipulate to amend the pleadings during 

the parties’ early meeting of counsel under 

Rule 26(f), without conceding that any 

stipulation would affect the Court’s 

jurisdiction—because it would not. Under 

well-established law, post-removal amendments 

to the complaint do not deprive the court of 

subject matter jurisdiction under the Class 

Action Fairness Act of 2005 (“CAFA”), Pub. L. 

109-2, § 4(a), 119 Stat. 9, if it existed at 

the time of filing and at the time of 

removal; and plaintiff does not appear to 

contest that subject matter jurisdiction was 

proper, based on his initial pleading, at the 

time of filing or removal. To date, plaintiff 

has not provided Target with a copy of his 

proposed amended complaint.

(JSR 2:9-27, ECF No. 5.) Plaintiff also states later in the JSR 

that he “will seek leave of court to file a motion for class 

certification[,] but “requests that the court schedule the Motion 

for Class Certification after it has ruled on whether this matter 

should be remanded in light of Plaintiff’s Motion to Dismiss 

without prejudice under FRCP 41 (a)(2) or Motion/Stipulation to 

file a First Amended Complaint.” (Id. at 4:16-19.)

Plaintiffs’ representations fail to comply with 

Plaintiff’s obligation under Rule 16 to provide meaningful 

information on when the referenced matters will be filed. Such 

information is necessary to enable the Court to schedule this 

action appropriately and in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 23(c)(1), which prescribes: “the court must determine 

by order whether to certify the action as a class action” at “an 

early practicable time.”

Case 2:13-cv-01659-GEB-KJN Document 7 Filed 12/03/13 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

Therefore, the Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Conference 

set for December 9, 2013, is continued to January 21, 2014, at 

9:00 a.m. A further joint status report shall be filed no later 

than fourteen (14) days prior to the Status Conference, in which 

Plaintiff shall propose a briefing schedule for the referenced 

motions.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 2, 2013

Case 2:13-cv-01659-GEB-KJN Document 7 Filed 12/03/13 Page 3 of 3