Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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

In re Arris Cable Modem Consumer Litigation

United States District Court, N.D. California, San Jose Division

September 6, 2019

IN RE ARRIS CABLE MODEM CONSUMER LITIGATION

          ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE FOURTH AMENDED CONSOLIDATED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT RE: DKT. NO. 191

          LUCY H. KOH, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         This is a class action brought by purchasers of certain cable modems manufactured by Defendant ARRIS International Limited (“Arris”). In March and May 2017, Plaintiffs filed their original complaints in two separate lawsuits. ECF No. 1. Since then, the parties have engaged in extensive litigation, culminating in this Court's grant of Arris's motion for summary judgment as to several of Plaintiffs' claims. Plaintiffs now seek to file a Fourth Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint. ECF No. 191.[1] Having considered the parties' submissions, the record in this case, and the relevant law, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File a Fourth Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint.

         I. BACKGROUND

         This action commenced on March 31, 2017, when Plaintiff Carlos Reyna filed a putative class action complaint against Arris. ECF No. 1. On May 11, 2017, Knowles and 16 other plaintiffs filed a separate putative class action complaint against Arris. No. 5:17-CV-2740, ECF No. 1. The gravamen of the complaints is that Arris failed to disclose defects in its SURF board SB6190 cable modem. The Court consolidated the cases on June 30, 2017. ECF No. 24.

         Although the original complaints contained claims brought under various states' laws, the parties proposed to streamline the litigation by adjudicating the four California law claims first. See ECF No. 22 (“June 2017 JCMS”) at 8. Specifically, under the parties' proposal, only the four California claims would “proceed through any motion by Defendant to dismiss, a motion by Plaintiffs to certify these California classes, and any motions for summary judgment.” Id. “[E]ach of the other state claims would be included in Plaintiffs' consolidated amended complaint, ” but they would be stayed pending resolution of the California claims. Id. The Court approved the parties' proposal at the case management conference on July 5, 2017. ECF No. 26; see ECF No. 40 (“July 2017 CMC Tr.”) at 5:5-5:17.

         Also at the July 2017 case management conference, the Court set a case schedule pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b). ECF No. 26; see ECF No. 27. In the joint case management statement, Plaintiffs indicated that they “expect[ed] to add additional state claims to their consolidated amended complaint, for a total of approximately between fifteen and twenty state claims.” June 2017 JCMS at 8. As requested by the parties, the Court set July 21, 2017 as the deadline for Plaintiffs to file their consolidated amended class action complaint. June 2017 JCMS at 9; ECF No. 27 at 2. Of particular relevance to the instant motion, the Court set December 15, 2017 as the last day to amend the pleadings and/or add parties. ECF No. 27 at 2. January 22, 2018 was set as the close of all fact discovery, excluding only “any discovery . . . that relates to only the non-California claims.” June 2017 JCMS at 5; July 2017 CMC Tr. at 11:7-9.

         Plaintiffs filed their consolidated amended class action complaint on July 21, 2017. ECF No. 30. The consolidated amended class action complaint included claims under California law and eighteen claims under the laws of other states. Id. The four California causes of action were brought on behalf of the named California Plaintiffs and the California Subclass under (1) the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act (“Song-Beverly Act”), Cal Civ. Code §§ 1790 et seq.; (2) the Consumer Legal Remedies Act (“CLRA”), Cal. Civ. Code §§ 1750 et seq.; (3) the False Advertising Law (“FAL”), Cal Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17500 et seq.; and (4) the Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”), Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17200 et seq. Id. Plaintiffs also asserted a claim for unjust enrichment/quasi-contract individually and on behalf of the Nationwide Class. Id.

         Over the next two years, the parties exhaustively litigated the four California claims and the claim for unjust enrichment/quasi-contract. In August 2017, Arris filed a motion to dismiss and to strike parts of the CCAC. ECF No. 33. The Court granted the motion to dismiss with leave to amend and denied the motion to strike in January 2018. ECF No. 54.

         In February 2018, Plaintiffs filed a second amended consolidated class action complaint, ECF No. 59-4, and Arris filed an answer thereto, ECF No. 68. After an extension requested by the parties, fact discovery closed on February 20, 2018. See ECF No. 117 at 1.

         In August 2018, the Court certified two damages classes under Rule 23(b)(3): (1) a class that sought relief under the UCL and FAL, and (2) a subclass that sought relief under the Song-Beverly Act and CLRA. ECF No. 136. Plaintiffs did not move to certify a class as to the claim for unjust enrichment/quasi-contract. See Id. at 8-9.

         Both parties also filed several Daubert challenges to their respective experts, see ECF Nos. 94, 96, 98, 124, all of which were denied by the Court in August of 2018, see ECF No. 136.

         On December 12, 2018, the Court granted the parties' request to lift the stay on discovery as to Plaintiffs' non-California claims. ECF No. 155. On January 7, 2019, Arris sent Plaintiffs a letter indicating Arris's intent to seek dismissal of nine non-California claims from the second amended consolidated class action complaint. ECF No. 191-1, Ex. A.

         On April 25, 2019, Arris filed a motion summary judgment as to the four California claims and the claim for unjust enrichment. ECF No. 173. On August 20, 2019, the Court granted Arris's motion for summary judgment as to all four California claims and dismissed the unjust enrichment claim as abandoned. See ECF No. 224 at 29.

         On June 28, 2019, after the parties' had completed their briefing on Arris's motion for summary judgment, Plaintiffs filed the instant Motion for Leave to File a Fourth Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint. ECF No. 191 (“Mot. for Leave”). On July 12, 2019, Arris ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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