United States District Court, N.D. California, San Jose Division
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE FOURTH AMENDED
CONSOLIDATED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT RE: DKT. NO. 191
H. KOH, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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,
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.
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 ...