Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Guifu Li, Meng Wang, Fang Dai, Lin Cui v. A Perfect Day Franchise

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION


August 3, 2011

GUIFU LI, MENG WANG, FANG DAI, LIN CUI, AND ZHONG YU, ON BEHALF OF THEMSELVES AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, PLAINTIFFS,
v.
A PERFECT DAY FRANCHISE, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.,
DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Lucy H. Koh United States District Judge

ORDER REGARDING DEADLINES FOR MOTIONS

Plaintiffs submitted a "Request for Status Conference" on August 2, 2011. In it, Plaintiffs 20 ask to vacate the current class certification briefing schedule based on a number of issues. The 21 Court has granted multiple extensions to the class certification briefing schedule due to delays in 22 discovery. In the last extension, the Court stated that no further extensions would be granted. The 23 Court will not extend the class certification briefing schedule. 24

Based on Plaintiffs' filing, it appears that Defendants have raised a potential conflict of 25 interest between Plaintiffs' counsel Adam Wang and Defendants. This potential conflict came to 26 light during a deposition on July 12, 2011. To date, Defendants have not made a motion to 27 disqualify Mr. Wang or any of the rest of Plaintiffs' counsel. If Defendants intend to file such a 28 motion, they shall do so by August 5, 2011. If Defendants file such a motion, Mr. Wang may not 2 work on this matter until the motion is resolved. However, even if Defendants move to disqualify 3 all of Plaintiffs' counsel, the rest of Plaintiffs' counsel may work on the case until the motion to 4 disqualify is resolved. Plaintiffs state that they have postponed other depositions because of the 5 potential conflicts. The parties are ordered to reschedule these depositions so that they are 6 concluded on or before August 10, 2011. 7 8 on the scheduled date of July 11, 2011, despite this Court's Order that the date for his deposition be 9 set by June 24, 2011. Plaintiffs shall make a motion to compel, a motion for sanctions for 10 contempt of this Court's Order, or both, by August 5, 2011. 11

In addition, Plaintiffs state that Defendants have not made Mr. Zou available for deposition The Court is disappointed that both parties appear to be delaying resolution of this case.

While the Defendants have failed to cooperate in producing witnesses, Plaintiffs have not asserted 13 their rights by filing motions to compel or other motions requiring Defendants to comply with their 14 discovery obligations. If the parties do not wish to litigate this case, they are encouraged to settle 15 it. Otherwise, the case schedule remains as set.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20110803

© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.