Summary
stating that plaintiff's argument seeking to limit Crandall's Report because it observed non-members of the putative class "flies in the face of overall argument" of similarity of the class
Summary of this case from Goodman v. Burlington Coat FactoryOpinion
1:11-cv-01052-AWI-JLT
08-28-2012
CANDACE CASIDA AND LIZETTE GALVAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated Plaintiffs, v. SEARS HOLDINGS CORPORATION; and SEARS, ROEBUCK & CO. Defendants.
ORDER RE: FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS ON
MOTION FOR CLASS
CERTIFICATION
(Doc. 153)
The Court refers the parties to previous orders for a complete chronology of the proceedings. Plaintiffs Candace Casida and Lizette Galvan ("Plaintiffs") bring this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d) individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated. On May 11, 2012, Plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. On June 22, 2012, defendants Sears Holdings Corporation and Sears, Roebuck & Co. ("Defendants") filed their opposition to Plaintiff's motion for class certification. On August 8, 2012, the Magistrate Judge issued her findings and recommendations, finding Plaintiffs had failed to demonstrate the requirements for certification under Rule 23(b)(3) and recommending the motion be denied. Plaintiffs did not file written objections to the findings and recommendations. As to a magistrate judge's findings and recommendations, the Court "shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made" and "may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations[.]" 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The Court "may also receive further evidence or recommit the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions." Id. The Court has conducted a de novo review of the case in accordance with the provisions of section 636(b)(1) and Local Rule 303. Having reviewed the pleadings of record and all competent and admissible evidence submitted, the Court finds the Magistrate Judge's recommendation Plaintiffs' motion for class certification be denied to be supported by the record and proper analysis. Accordingly, the findings and recommendations issued August 8, 2012 are ADOPTED IN FULL and Plaintiffs' motion for class certification is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED.
__________________________________
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE