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.

Elaine Harris v. Starline Communications Int'l

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


June 14, 2012

ELAINE HARRIS
v.
STARLINE COMMUNICATIONS INT'L, INC.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Present: The Honorable Percy Anderson, United States District Judge

SEND

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Paul Songco None N/A

Deputy Clerk Court Reporter Tape No.

Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs: Attorneys Present for Defendants:

None None

Proceedings: IN CHAMBERS-ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

Before the Court is the parties' Joint Scheduling Conference Report and Proposed Discovery Plan, ("26(f) Report"). [Docket No. 21.] Plaintiff Elaine Harris has brought a Class Action Complaint for damages and injunctive relief pursuant to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 42 U.S.C. § 227 against Defendant Starline Communications International, Inc.

Local Rule 23-3 provides that "[w]ithin 90 days after service of a pleading purporting to commence a class action other than an action subject to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 . . . the proponent of the class shall file a motion for certification that the action is maintainable as a class action, unless otherwise ordered by the Court." "'Local rules are 'laws of the United States," and "valid if . . . 'not inconsistent' with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure."" United States v. Comprehensive Drug Testing, Inc., 473 F.3d 915, 927 (9th Cir. 2006) (internal quotations omitted) (quoting Marshall v. Gates, 44 F.3d 722, 724 (9th Cir. 1995) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 83).

On May 31, 2012 -- merely one day before the deadline to file the Motion for Class Certification -- the parties submitted a stipulation to extend the deadline for filing that motion until January 08, 2013. The Court denied that request on June 13, 2012. Thus, the date for filing such a motion has come and gone. The Court hereby orders Plaintiff to show cause in writing why it should not strike the class allegations from her Complaint for failure to comply with Local Rule 23-3. Plaintiff is ordered to respond to this Order to Show Cause by June 22, 2012. Defendants' response, if any, is due no later than June 29, 2012.

The Scheduling Conference scheduled for June 18, 2012, is hereby continued to July 9, 2012.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20120614

© 1992-2012 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.