N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT JOSEPH PEREZ, on be ha lf of him se lf a nd othe rs sim ila

rly situa te d, Plaintiff - Appe lla nt, v. SAFELITE GR OUP INC , De fe nda

nt - Appe lle e . No. 12-55657 D.C . No. 2:10-c v-08653-R GKFFM M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the C e ntra l Distric t of C a lifornia R . Ga ry Kla usne r, Distric t

Judge , Pre siding Argue d an d Subm i tte d De c e m be r 5, 2013 Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : D.W . NELSON, W ARDLAW , a

nd R AW LINSON, C irc uit Judge s. Jose ph Pe re z a

ppe a ls from

the distric t c o urt’ s de n ia l of his c l a ss c e rtific ation m otion. W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291, a nd we va c ate the de nia l of c la ss c e rtific ation a

nd re m a nd for furthe r proc e e dings. 

# FIL ED JAN 21 2014 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S . CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3.Pe re z , wishing to enga ge in disc ove ry prior to c la ss c e rtific ation, stipula te d with Sa fe lite to e xte nd the c la ss c e rtific ation de a dline . The distric t c ourt de nie d the stipula tion without re a soning. Pe re zthe n m ove d to c ontinue the c la ss c e rtific ation de a dline in orde r to e n ga ge in pre c e rtific ation disc ove ry . The distric t c o urt de nie d the m otion without re a soning. Pe re z the n file d a tim e ly m o tion to c e rtify

the c la ss, and a ga in sta

t e d tha t pre c e rtific ation disc ove ry wa s a ppropria te . The distric t c ourt de nie d the c la ss c e rtific ation m otion be c a u se the re wa s insuffic ie nt e vide nc e to e sta blish thejob dutie s pe rform e d by c la ss m e m

be rs othe r tha

n Pe re z . The distric t c ourt did not addre ss the ne e d for pre c e rtific at ion disc ove ry . The distric t c ourt a

b use d its disc re tion whe n it fa ile d to gra nt Pe re z ’ s re que s ts for pre c e rtific ation disc ove ry for two re a sons. First, the pla intiff in a

c la ss a c tion “ be ars the burde n of . . . showing tha t . . . disc o ve ry is like ly

to produc e substa ntia tion of thec la ss a l le gations.” Mantole te v . Bolge r , 767 F.2d 1416, 1424 (9th C ir. 1985). Onc e this showing is m a de , it is a n a buse of disc re tion to de ny pre c e rtific ation disc ove ry . Id. (c iting Doninge r v . Pac . N w . Be ll, Inc . , 564 F.2d 1304, 1313 (9th C ir. 1977)). Pe re z subm itte d doc um e n tation a nd te stim ony c onc e rning his e m

ploy m e nt with Sa fe lite , a

nd ha s m e t his burde n to show tha t disc ove ry is like ly to substa n tia te the c la ss a lle gat ions by showing tha

t Pe re z ’ s e xpe rie nc e s a

re c om m on to those

of othe r e m

ploy e e s with thesa

m e job title . 2Se c ond, fa iling to allow pre c e rtific ation disc ove ry whe re it is ne c e ssa

ry to de te rm i ne the e xiste nc e of a c la ss is a n a buse of disc re tion. K

amm v . C al. C ity De v . C o. , 509 F.2d 205, 210 (9th C ir. 1975). The distric t c ourt de nie d c la ss c e rtific ation be c a

use Pe re z did not ha

v e e vide nc e a

bout othe r e m

ploy e e s with his job title , whic h shows tha t disc o ve ry

is ne c e ssa

ry to de te rm ine the e x iste nc e of a c la ss in this c a se . Pe re z is the re fore e ntitle d to pre c e rtific ation disc ove ry on re m and. Pe re z ’ s c ha lle nge to C e ntra l Distric t of C a lifornia Loc a l R ule 23-3 is without m e rit be c a

use the tim ing of c la s s c e rtific ation is c o m m itte d to the disc re tion of the distric t judge and R

ule 23-3 a llows e xte nsion of the90-da y c e rtific ation de a dline by orde r of the c o urt. S

e e Pitts v . Te rrible

He rbst, Inc . , 653 F.3d 1081, 1092-94 (9th C ir. 2011). C osts a re aw arde d

to a ppe lla nt. V ACAT E D and RE M ANDE D.

3