Maharaj v. The Hertz Corporation
- Jacquelyn Corley
- 3:23-cv-04726
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 5
In Maharaj v. Hertz, Judge Corley granted plaintiffs’ motion to modify the case-management schedule, allowing their late class-certification filing.
The ruling allowed Maharaj and Schulz to pursue their proposed class-certification motion against The Hertz Corporation on the revised schedule; it also set Hertz’s opposition deadline and the dates for plaintiffs’ reply and the hearing.
What happened
In Maharaj v. The Hertz Corporation, plaintiffs brought a proposed class action and representative wage-and-hour case under state law. They asked to change the court’s schedule after missing the deadline to file their class-certification motion.
The court found that plaintiffs had worked diligently, that discovery had contributed to the schedule extensions, and that their lead attorney’s medical issue explained the missed deadline. The court also found no meaningful prejudice to Hertz because the delay was brief and no trial date had been set.
Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley granted plaintiffs’ motion to modify the case-management schedule. The court made plaintiffs’ July 9, 2025 class-certification motion operative and set deadlines for Hertz’s opposition, plaintiffs’ reply, and the hearing.
The detailed version
- Maharaj v. The Hertz Corporation · No. 3:23-cv-04726
- Jacquelyn Corley
- Aug. 28, 2025
Background
Plaintiffs Zabeena Maharaj and Rodolfo Schulz brought a proposed class action and representative action under California’s Private Attorneys General Act against The Hertz Corporation for alleged state-law wage-and-hour violations. The court’s scheduling order originally required plaintiffs to file their class-certification motion by October 10, 2024. The parties obtained several stipulated extensions, moving the deadline first to January 8, 2025, then to April 8, 2025, and finally to June 9, 2025.
Plaintiffs did not meet the June 9 deadline. Plaintiffs’ counsel, Mr. Torrijos, stated that Hertz had produced substantial discovery relevant to class certification and that an unexpected medical issue affected his ability to complete the motion and caused him to lose track of the deadline. After learning that the deadline had been missed, plaintiffs filed their class-certification motion on July 9, 2025 and asked the court to modify the scheduling order so that the late filing would be allowed.
Legal Standard
Because the deadline had been set in a scheduling order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16, the court applied the rule’s “good cause” standard. The main question was whether plaintiffs had acted diligently. The court also considered whether changing the schedule would prejudice Hertz. Hertz additionally argued that plaintiffs had to show “excusable neglect” under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b)(1)(B).
Court’s Analysis
The court found that plaintiffs had acted diligently. Their earlier extensions were connected to additional discovery, plaintiffs had taken depositions and engaged in meaningful discovery, and discovery was still open. The court found Mr. Torrijos’s explanation credible because plaintiffs had consistently sought extensions before deadlines, had not previously missed deadlines, and acted after learning of the missed deadline.
The court rejected Hertz’s arguments that the repeated extensions showed a lack of diligence or that other attorneys should have prevented the missed deadline. The court also found no prejudice to Hertz. It noted that the delay was brief, no trial date had been set, and allowing the class-certification motion would make use of the parties’ work during more than a year of discovery.
The court further stated that, assuming the excusable-neglect standard applied, plaintiffs satisfied it. The court relied on the brief delay, the absence of prejudice, the lack of undue impact on the proceedings, the medical reason for the delay, and plaintiffs’ prompt action after discovering the missed deadline.
Disposition
Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley granted plaintiffs’ motion to modify the case-management schedule. The court ruled that plaintiffs’ July 9, 2025 class-certification motion was operative. The deadline for Hertz to file an opposition was October 3, 2025; plaintiffs’ reply was due October 17, 2025; and the court set argument for December 4, 2025, at 10:00 a.m. The order disposed of Docket No. 64.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.