Summary
In Glover, the district court noted a California Court of Appeals decision which had expressly declined to decide the issue of whether the thirty-day limit could be cumulative.
Summary of this case from Hernandez v. Mercedez-Benz U.S., LLCOpinion
8:21-cv-01969-JDE
01-27-2022
Present: The Honorable John D. Early, United States Magistrate Judge
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Proceedings: Hearing re Defendant's Motion to Dismiss [Dkt. 11] and Plaintiffs' Motion to Remand [Dkt. 15]
Case called. Telephonic Appearances made. The Court confirms that, by docket entry 22, filed at 7:57 p.m. the night before the hearing, Plaintiffs have withdrawn their Motion to Remand (Dkt. 15). As a result, the Motion to Remand (Dkt. 15) is DENIED as moot.
The Court issues an oral tentative ruling re Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. 11, “Motion”), finding tentatively that: (1) Defendant did not properly meet and confer under Local Rule 7-3 prior to filing the Motion; (2) that failure meet and confer was not harmless as to disputes relating to Count Two in the Complaint, as Plaintiffs' counsel requested leave to amend in response to portions of the arguments in the Motion challenging Count Two, and the Court therefore tentatively denies the Motion as to its challenges to Count Two for failure to meet and confer, but nonetheless, in the interests of justice, tentatively grants Plaintiffs' request for leave to amend as to the allegations contained in Count Two of the Complaint under Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a)(2); and (3) the failure to meet and confer as to the disputes relating to Count Three of the Complaint was harmless as no further meet and confer efforts would have been fruitful, so the failure to comply with Local Rule 7-3 is excused as to the portion of the Motion challenging the legal sufficiency of Count Three, and the Court tentatively grants the Motion as to Count Three, without leave to amend, for the reasons stated on the record.
Counsel are heard regarding the Court's tentative. Following argument, the Court indicates that it likely will stand on the tentative ruling, with a written order to follow.
In the meantime, the Court sets or resets the following dates. The Scheduling Conference is continued to April 28, 2022, at 10:00 a.m. Other than the amended date, all other provisions of the Order Setting Scheduling Conference (Dkt. 14) remain in effect. Following the issuance of a final order on the Motion (Dkt. 11), if such order provides Plaintiffs leave to amend, Plaintiffs shall file any amended complaint by March 10, 2022. Any answer or other response to any such amended complaint shall be filed by Defendant by March 31, 2022. If Defendant files a motion challenging the sufficiency of any such amended complaint, the hearing on such motion shall proceed on April 28, 2022 at 10:00 a.m. Further, the parties are ordered to complete a mediation with a private mediator, as agreed by the parties, by February 28, 2022, with counsel for Plaintiffs to file a report regarding the outcome of such mediation within two court days' after its completion.
IT IS SO ORDERED.