Kelly v. Aramark Services, Inc.

Background

On February 23, 2024, Kelly told the court that the parties had reached a settlement in principle. The court set June 24, 2024, as the deadline for a motion seeking preliminary approval of a class-action settlement. The court later granted the parties’ request to extend the deadline to August 8, 2024.

No motion for preliminary approval was filed by that date, and the only subsequent case activity identified by the court was a notice that one of Kelly’s attorneys had changed counsel. The court issued an order to show cause in November 2024, requiring Kelly’s counsel to explain why sanctions should not be imposed for missing the deadline.

Counsel explained that an attorney had unexpectedly left the firm in July 2024, that the departing attorney’s caseload had been redistributed, and that the settlement also involved releasing claims under California’s Private Attorneys General Act. Counsel stated that a date was mistakenly entered as August 22, 2025, rather than August 22, 2024, in the firm’s case-management system. At a December 12, 2024 hearing, the court remained concerned that counsel had not requested an extension before the deadline passed. The court later required supplemental briefing about sanctions and remedial steps. On January 14, 2025, the court personally sanctioned Jose Maria D. Patino, Jr.; the sanction was timely paid. The court also granted the parties’ request to file a second amended complaint.

Court’s concerns

As of May 23, 2025, no preliminary-approval motion had been filed. The court stated that nine months had passed since the deadline and more than four months had passed since the sanction and the filing of the second amended complaint. The court said it was deeply troubled by counsel’s continued failure to meet deadlines and advance the case, including after counsel had represented that the motion would be filed shortly.

The court emphasized that plaintiffs are responsible for moving their cases forward. It found the delay especially troubling because the conduct of plaintiffs and their counsel could affect the rights of class members who were not present in the case. The court therefore expressed concern about the adequacy of counsel’s representation of the class and of plaintiffs in other matters before the court.

Order

The court invoked its inherent power to dismiss an action on its own initiative to achieve the orderly and prompt handling of cases. It ordered Kelly to file, by June 25, 2025, a written response explaining why the action should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute and comply with court orders.

The court did not dismiss the action in this order. It also ordered that, if Kelly wished to proceed, he must file the motion for preliminary approval by June 25, 2025, and comply with the Northern District of California’s procedural guidance for class-action settlements. The court warned that failure to comply with that guidance could itself result in denial of the motion. If counsel could not meet the June 25 deadline, Kelly had to file a proper stipulation or administrative motion by noon on June 18, 2025, showing good cause and proposing a new deadline.