From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Cholakyan v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC

United States District Court, C.D. California, Western Division
May 25, 2011
No. 10-cv-05944-MMM (JC) (C.D. Cal. May. 25, 2011)
Download
PDF
Check
Treatment

Summary

finding that a motion to strike class allegations was premature where defendant had not filed an answer and discovery had not begun

Summary of this case from Sihler v. Fulfillment Lab, Inc.
See 13 Summaries

Opinion

No. 10-cv-05944-MMM (JC).

May 25, 2011

Troy M. Yoshino, No. 197850 Eric J. Knapp, No. 214352 Billie D. Salinas, No. 235193 CARROLL, BURDICK McDONOUGH LLP Attorneys at Law San Francisco, CA Attorneys for Defendant Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC

ORDER GRANTING PARTIES' STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER REGARDING CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL AS MODIFIED

JACQUELINE CHOOLJIAN, Magistrate JudgePage 2

The Court having considered the proposed Joint Stipulated Protective Order agreed to by the parties and good cause appearing therefore, the Court hereby GRANTS Plaintiff Tigran Cholakyan and Defendant Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC's Stipulated Protective Order Regarding Confidential Material with the following modifications, most of which are corrections to misnumbered cross-referenced paragraphs:

1. In Paragraph 6, at page 3, the cross-reference to paragraph 10 is changed to a cross-reference to paragraphs 13 and 14.

2. Paragraph 7 is modified as follows: The phrase "filed under seal" which appears at page 3 at both lines 16 and 20 is modified to "submitted for filing under seal".

3. Paragraph 8a is modified to read as follows: "The Court and Court personnel, provided that any such discovery material filed with the Clerk of the Court shall be submitted for filing under seal, pursuant to paragraph 7 above, and for release only by order of the Court or by agreement of the parties";

4. In Paragraph 11, all cross-references to Paragraphs 7(c), 7(e), and 7(f) are modified to cross-references to Paragraphs 8(c), 8(e) and 8(f);

5. In Paragraph 15, the cross-reference to Paragraph 9 is modified to cross-reference Paragraph 11.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Summaries of

Cholakyan v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC

United States District Court, C.D. California, Western Division
May 25, 2011
No. 10-cv-05944-MMM (JC) (C.D. Cal. May. 25, 2011)

finding that a motion to strike class allegations was premature where defendant had not filed an answer and discovery had not begun

Summary of this case from Sihler v. Fulfillment Lab, Inc.

finding that a motion to strike class allegations was premature where defendant had not filed an answer and discovery had not begun

Summary of this case from Woodburn v. City of Henderson

finding that a motion to strike class allegations was premature where defendant had not filed an answer and discovery had not begun

Summary of this case from Smith v. Specialized Loan Servicing, LLC

finding that the plaintiff sufficiently alleged a safety hazard based on defects that could result in sudden engine failure while the car was in motion even though the complaint lacked any allegation that the plaintiff or any class member had ever experienced sudden engine failure while driving

Summary of this case from Coleman-Anacleto v. Samsung Elecs. Am., Inc.

finding that the plaintiff had sufficiently alleged a safety hazard based on defects that could result in sudden engine failure while the car was in motion even though the complaint lacked any allegation that the plaintiff or any class member had ever experienced sudden engine failure while driving

Summary of this case from Butler v. Porsche Cars N. Am., Inc.

finding that a motion to strike class allegations was premature where defendant had not filed an answer and discovery had not begun

Summary of this case from Dittmar v. Costco Wholesale Corp.

finding that a motion to strike class allegations was premature where defendant had not filed an answer and discovery had not begun

Summary of this case from Graves v. Sw. & Pac. Specialty Fin., Inc.

rejecting defendant's argument that "the purported safety defects are speculative in nature, because there is no allegation that [plaintiff] or any other class member ever experienced such a defect"

Summary of this case from Falco v. Nissan North Am. Inc.

rejecting motion to strike because made prior to sufficient discovery to give plaintiff a chance to bring class certification motion

Summary of this case from Torres v. Superior Court of Orange Cnty.

refusing to dismiss the implied warranty claims of a Plaintiff who discovered a safety-related defect in his vehicle three years after purchasing it and also noting that "[v]ehicles subject to engine failure cannot be said to be merchantable"

Summary of this case from Sloan v. Gen. Motors LLC

stating that while "class allegations can be stricken at the pleadings stage, it is in fact rare to do so in advance of a motion for class certification"

Summary of this case from Mejia v. Farmland Mut. Ins. Co.

noting that it is rare to strike class allegations in advance of a motion for class certification

Summary of this case from Avedisian v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC

dismissing similar allegations

Summary of this case from Feldman v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC
Case details for

Cholakyan v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC

Case Details

Full title:TIGRAN CHOLAKYAN, individually, and on behalf of a class of similarly…

Court:United States District Court, C.D. California, Western Division

Date published: May 25, 2011

Citations

No. 10-cv-05944-MMM (JC) (C.D. Cal. May. 25, 2011)

Citing Cases

Feldman v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC

See Marsikian, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 117012, at *16-17 (C.D.Cal. May 4, 2009) (denying a motion to dismiss a…

Woodburn v. City of Henderson

So, I deny its Rule 12(f) motion to strike. See, e.g., Graves v. Sw. & Pac. Specialty Fin., Inc., No. C…

49 Citing Cases