In Re Pacific Fertility Center Litigation

Background

Plaintiffs brought a putative class action asserting various state-law claims against Pacific Fertility Center, Prelude Fertility, Inc., and Chart Industries. The court had previously compelled arbitration of the claims against Pacific Fertility Center.

Plaintiffs moved for class certification of their claims against Prelude, Pacific MSO, and Chart. Two weeks before that motion was filed, Chart filed a third-party complaint against San Francisco Fertility Centers doing business as Pacific Fertility and seven physicians. The third-party complaint asserted claims for contribution and indemnity. All but one of the third-party defendants moved to dismiss the third-party complaint and sought changes to the class-certification briefing schedule and the discovery and trial deadlines.

Legal standard

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b)(4), a scheduling order may be modified only for good cause and with the judge’s consent. The court explained that good cause primarily focuses on the diligence of the party seeking the change.

Court’s reasoning

The third-party defendants requested a three-month extension of the briefing schedule for plaintiffs’ class-certification motion. They argued that they needed time to evaluate how class certification might affect their claims and defenses, including Chart’s claims for contribution and indemnity. The court rejected that explanation because plaintiffs were not seeking certification of claims against the third-party defendants. The third-party defendants also had not argued that their status gave them a right to oppose certification of claims to which they were not parties, and the court was unaware of authority supporting such a right.

The third-party defendants also sought changes to the discovery and trial schedule, but they did not specify how much additional time they needed or what discovery they sought. The court found that they therefore could not establish cause, much less good cause. The court also noted that fact discovery was scheduled to continue for 60 days after the class-certification ruling, and the third-party defendants had not shown that they would lack adequate time for discovery after the court ruled on their motion to dismiss. Their counsel had attended all depositions held to date and was therefore positioned to identify any needed additional discovery.

Disposition

The court denied the third-party defendants’ request to extend the class-certification briefing schedule and vacate the discovery and trial deadlines. It also stated that the motion to amend the scheduling orders was denied. The order disposed of Docket No. 345.