The opinion of the court was delivered by: Saundra Brown Armstrong United States District Judge
ORDER DENYING IN PART AND GRANTING IN PART DEFENDANT AT&T MOBILITY LLC'S ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO STAY ITS OBLIGATIONS UNDER THE COURT'S INITIAL SCHEDULING ORDER AND PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO STRIKE PENDING RESOLUTION OF ITS ANTICIPATED MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION OR, AT MINIMUM, UNTIL THE COURT ACTS ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO REMAND THE ACTION TO STATE COURT [DOCKET NOS. 15 & 24]
This matter comes before the Court upon the motion of Defendant AT&T Mobility LLC ("AT&T"), pursuant to Civil L.R. 7-11. Defendant requests a stay of obligations imposed under 18 this Court's Initial Scheduling Order and Plaintiff's Motion to Strike that is currently set to be heard 19 20 before this Court on October 6, 2009.
Upon all of the files and pleadings properly submitted, and for the reasons set forth below,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant AT&T's motion is DENIED IN PART and GRANTED IN PART.
In this action, Plaintiff David Morgenstein seeks to represent a class of California retail 25 consumers of AT&T Mobility who purchased a product bundle consisting of a new AT&T cellular 26 27 telephone service account and a new AT&T-compatible cellular telephone, and who paid monthly rate plan charges for service during any period prior to receiving their AT&T-compatible phone. [Complaint ¶ 26].
Plaintiff originally filed his Complaint in California Superior Court on June 11, 2009. On June 12, 2009, the Complaint was served upon Defendant AT&T. About a month later, on July 10, 2009, Defendant AT&T served and filed its Answer in California Superior Court. On July 13, 2009, Defendant AT&T filed a Notice of Removal of this action, but did not file a motion to compel arbitration. By July 30, Plaintiff notified AT&T of its intent to move to strike AT&T's answer and move to remand the action. On August 3, 2009, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Remand and a Motion to Strike Portions of Defendant's Answer, both of which are set for hearing by this Court on October 6, 2009. On August 31----80 days after receiving service of the summons and complaint----Defendant AT&T filed a motion pursuant to Local Rule 7-11 to stay all proceedings in this action pending determination of two appeals in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, or pending the determination of a motion it "anticipates" filing after the October 6, 2009 hearing. The parties stipulated to continue the dates set by the Court's Order Setting Case Management Conference and ADR Deadlines by thirty (30) days.
expedited and summary disposition pursuant to Local Rule 7-11. See Omoregie v. Boardwalk Auto By its terms, Local Rule 7-11 is reserved for motions with respect to:
[M]iscellaneous administrative matters, not otherwise governed by a federal statute, Federal or local rule or standing order of the assigned judge. These motions would include matters such as motions to exceed otherwise applicable page limitations or motions to file documents under seal, for example.
A motion to stay all litigation proceedings is not an "administrative matter" suitable for Center, Inc., No. C 07-3884 (PJH), 2008 WL 4792643 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 31, 2008) (Hamilton, J.),
Civil Local Rule 7-11, which is meant to cover requests for relief in connection with "miscellaneous administrative matters"----such as motions to exceed otherwise applicable page limitations or motions to file documents under seal----is not the appropriate vehicle by which to request a stay of all litigation proceedings. Rather, plaintiff should have filed a properly noticed motion pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1 et seq. and the 35 day briefing schedule set forth therein, in order to provide all affected parties with the opportunity to be fully heard on the matter.
See also Dister v. Apple-Bay East, Inc., No. C 07-01377 (SBA), 2007 WL 4045429 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 15, 2007) (Armstrong, J.), Slip Op. at *4 (footnotes omitted):
administrative matter that is appropriate for treatment under Civil L.R. 7-11." Here, Defendant AT&T has offered no explanation for its failure to file an appropriate motion for a stay when it filed its answer on July 10, when it filed its removal papers on July 13, when it received notice on July 30 of Plaintiff's intent to move to strike its answer and move to remand, when it received 1 Plaintiff's remand motion and motion to strike on August 3, 2009, or at any other time prior to August 31, 2009.
intention to file a motion to compel arbitration in the future. As this Court stated in Omoregie v. Boardwalk Auto Center, Inc., ...