Amaro

Amaro v. Bee Sweet Citrus, Inc.

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaSeptember 8, 20221:21-cv-00382California1,871 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

I. BACKGROUND

7 Plaintiffs initiated this class action against Defendant on March 11, 2021. (ECF No. 1). 8 On March 11, 2021, Magistrate Judge Helena M. Barch-Kuchta set an initial scheduling 9 conference for September 22, 2021. (ECF No. 3). On April 2, 2021, Defendant filed a motion to 10 dismiss on the grounds that this case was duplicative of a previously filed related case, Montes v. 11 Bee Sweet Citrus, Inc., 1:20-cv-01162-JLT-EPG (“Montes”). (ECF No. 2). On September 8, 12 2021, Defendant file an ex parte application to vacate the mandatory scheduling conference until 13 a ruling was issued on the then-pending motion to dismiss. (ECF No. 11). Defendant then filed a 14 motion to consolidate this action with the Montes case. (ECF No. 12). On September 13, 2021, 15 Judge Barch-Kuchta issued a minute order vacating the scheduling conference. (ECF No. 13). Subsequently, this case was reassigned to Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean. (ECF No. 17). On August 18, 2022, an order was entered denying Defendant’s motion to dismiss and denying Defendant’s motion to consolidate. (ECF No. 23). As explained in District Judge Jennifer L. Thurston’s order, Defendant’s…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.