Salhotra v. Simpson Strong-Tie Company, Inc.
- Thomas Hixson
- 3:19-cv-07901
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Salhotra v. Simpson Strong-Tie, Judge Hixson denied plaintiffs’ request to shorten briefing on their stay motion but set an earlier schedule.
The order affected the plaintiffs and defendants by setting the briefing schedule for plaintiffs’ motion to stay proceedings.
What happened
Salhotra v. Simpson Strong-Tie Company, Inc. concerns plaintiffs’ allegations that defendants’ products were defective and corroded prematurely, violating an express warranty. The court had previously denied plaintiffs’ request to certify a class, and plaintiffs then asked to pause the case while pursuing a related appellate petition.
Plaintiffs asked the court to require defendants to respond to the stay motion by March 22 and to cancel the April 21 hearing. The court denied that request because plaintiffs had not met the requirements for asking to shorten the schedule. However, the court changed the briefing schedule, requiring defendants to respond by March 25 and plaintiffs to reply by April 1.
Judge Thomas S. Hixson issued the March 22, 2022 order. The order addressed only the timing of briefing on the stay motion; it did not decide whether the proceedings would actually be stayed.
The detailed version
- Salhotra v. Simpson Strong-Tie Company, Inc. · No. 3:19-cv-07901
- Thomas Hixson
- Mar. 22, 2022
Background
Plaintiffs alleged that defendants’ HD Strap-tie Holdowns and MAS Mudsil Anchors were inherently defective and prone to premature corrosion, breaching defendants’ express warranty. On March 3, 2022, the court denied plaintiffs’ motion for class certification. Plaintiffs later filed a motion to stay the proceedings while awaiting a ruling related to their petition under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(f), which concerns permission to appeal a class-certification ruling.
Plaintiffs also filed an ex parte application—an application made without the ordinary amount of advance notice—to shorten the time for briefing on their stay motion. Plaintiffs asked the court to require defendants to respond by March 22, 2022, and to vacate the April 21 hearing. They argued that proceeding under the regular schedule would prejudice them by requiring continued litigation and would waste judicial resources.
Court’s Analysis
The court denied the request to require a response by March 22. It found that plaintiffs had not followed Civil Local Rule 6-3, which requires supporting information about the reasons for changing the schedule, efforts to obtain agreement from the other side, possible harm or prejudice, prior schedule changes, and the effect on the case schedule.
The court nevertheless found cause to modify the existing briefing schedule because plaintiffs had filed a Rule 23(f) petition. The court noted that it has broad discretion to supervise the pretrial phase of litigation and may grant, deny, or modify a request to enlarge or shorten time.
Disposition
The court DENIED plaintiffs’ Ex Parte Application for Order Shortening Time on Plaintiffs’ Motion to Stay Proceedings. It separately ordered the following schedule for the stay motion: defendants’ response was due March 25, 2022, and plaintiffs’ reply was due April 1, 2022. The order did not rule on the stay motion itself.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.