Opinion
1:19-cv-01404-DAD-JLT
09-12-2021
SEBASTIANA MARTINEZ-SANCHEZ, et al., Plaintiffs, v. ANTHONY VINEYARDS, INC., et al., Defendants.
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS' REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL TIME TO FILE THE MOTION TO AMEND (Doc. 78)
Jennifer L. Thurston CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
As noted in its previous order, during the briefing on the motion for class certification, an issue arose whether the named plaintiffs could represent the class in its effort to obtain declaratory and injunctive relief. (Doc. 76) The plaintiffs asserted that the Court should, in essence, allow the complaint to be amended and add another plaintiff, identified as Mr. Antonio Martinez, who could represent the class for purposes of these remedies-all within the briefing for the motion for class certification. To afford the parties due process, the Court declined to do so but allowed the plaintiffs 16 days to file the motion. Id.
On the day the motion was due, plaintiffs' counsel filed a request for more time to file the motion, indicating that they could not locate an appropriate substitute class representative. (Doc. 78 at 2) The Court is at a loss to understand this development because the plaintiffs had represented to the Court that Mr. Martinez was an appropriate class representative and was willing to take on the role- given they urged the Court to grant the amendment despite little briefing on the topic and while arguing that, though Mr. Martinez would submit to discovery, discovery was unnecessary (Doc. 75 at 6-7). The plaintiffs noted,
To the extent Defendants insist on the right to conduct discovery as to Mr. Martinez, they can make written requests and depose him, but it will not be anything unexpected based on this declaration testimony, which confirms and supports most of the violations alleged by Plaintiffs. See Doc. 69; see also Doc. 73. Neither Plaintiffs, counsel for Plaintiffs, nor Mr. Martinez are opposed to Defendants being permitted to conduct written or oral discovery as to Mr. Martinez's adequacy to serve as class representative for the Rule 23(b)(2) class. However, Defendants also already possess Mr. Martinez's full employment file.Thus, though the Court will grant the plaintiffs until September 24 to file the motion, the Court expects that in the motion, the plaintiffs will explain why they proposed Mr. Martinez when they now admit he cannot take on the role.
1. The request for additional time to file the motion to amend (Doc. 78) is GRANTED.
The plaintiffs SHALL file their motion to amend, if at all, no later than September 24, 2021 . In their motion, the plaintiffs SHALL explain why they proposed Mr. Martinez originally when they now admit he cannot take on the role.
IT IS SO ORDERED.