1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 ZABEENA MAHARAJ, an individual; Case No. 23-cv-04726-JSC RODOLFO SCHULZ, an individual, on 8 behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated and other aggrieved employees, ORDER RE: PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION 9 TO CONTINUE CASE MANAGEMENT Plaintiffs, SCHEDULE 10 v. Re: Dkt. No. 64 11 THE HERTZ CORPORATION, 12 Defendant. 13

14 Plaintiffs bring this putative class and Private Attorney General Act (PAGA) action against 15 Defendant for alleged state law wage-and-hour violations. (Dkt. No. 42.) Plaintiffs now seek to 16 modify the case management schedule to permit their filing of a motion for class certification after 17 missing the Court-ordered deadline. (Dkt. No. 64.) After careful consideration of the briefing, 18 and with the benefit of oral argument on August 28, 2025, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ motion. 19 BACKGROUND 20 Plaintiffs instituted this action on September 14, 2023. (Dkt. No. 1.) The Court issued the 21 first pretrial order on December 21, 2023, setting the deadline to file for class certification for 22 October 10, 2024. (Dkt. No. 28.) Plaintiffs filed the operative second amended complaint on June 23 21, 2024. (Dkt. No. 42.) On August 16, 2024, the Court granted the parties’ stipulation to extend 24 the time to move for class certification to January 8, 2025. (Dkt. Nos. 49, 50.) A few months 25 later, the Court again granted the parties’ stipulation to move the deadline to file the motion for 26 class certification to April 8, 2025. (Dkt. Nos. 55, 56.) On March 27, 2025, the parties once again 27 stipulated to move the deadline to file for class certification, this time to June 9, 2025, and the 1 Court again agreed. (Dkt. Nos. 57, 58.) Plaintiffs did not file by the deadline. 2 Plaintiffs’ counsel, Mr. Torrijos, attests that on March 3, 2025, Defendant produced 320 3 pages of documents and two spreadsheets in response to February 26, 2025 requests for 4 production. (Dkt. No. 64-1 ¶¶ 6-7.) The spreadsheets “contained the names (but no contact 5 information) of 164 members of the class proposed by Plaintiffs.” (Id. ¶ 8.) Mr. Torrijos reached 6 out to Defendant on March 22, 2025, requesting the missing contact information and also asked 7 Defendant to “agree to a 90-day extension” for the class certification motion deadline. (Id. ¶ 9.) 8 The parties discussed both points and on March 27, 2025, the parties agreed to a 60-day 9 continuance, that is, the June 9, 2025 deadline. (Id. ¶¶10-14.) On March 31, 2025, Defendant 10 produced a new spreadsheet “with the names and available contact information of 164 members of 11 the class proposed by Plaintiffs.” (Id. ¶ 16.) On April 30, Defendants produced 2,981 pages of 12 documents and a spreadsheet with “37 separate tables” where “each table (except one) contain[ed] 13 approximately 114 rows and 16 columns of information, for a total of 1,824 fields.” (Id. ¶ 18.) 14 Mr. Torrijos further attests: “Although I diligently worked on Plaintiffs’ class certification 15 motion since early May 2025, particularly focusing on reviewing the extensive documentation 16 produced by Hertz on April 30, 2025, I was ultimately unable to meet the June 9, 2025 deadline 17 due to an unexpected medical issue.” (Id. ¶ 20.) Specifically, the “medical issue significantly 18 affected [his] ability to complete the briefing and caused [him] to lose track of the approaching 19 filing deadline.” (Id.) So, it was not until after co-counsel Mr. Mikayelyan made Mr. Torrijos 20 aware of the June 23, 2025 Clerk’s notice setting the July 9, 2025 case management conference 21 that he “became fully conscious of having missed the filing deadline.” (Id.) Mr. Torrijos then 22 instructed Mr. Mikayelyan to confer with Defendant about to stipulating to a new briefing 23 schedule, but Defendant refused. (Id. ¶¶ 23-24.) 24 On July 2, 2025, the parties filed their joint case management statement in anticipation of 25 the July 9 further case management conference. (Dkt. No. 62.) Plaintiffs state “[t]he delay is not a 26 result of lack of effort, but rather due to the time required to complete the discovery essential to 27 the class certification analysis” and “[the] lead attorney who was in charge of the briefing, has 1 class, though at the July 9, 2025 hearing, the Court ordered Plaintiffs to first move to modify the 2 Rule 16 scheduling order. 3 Now before the Court is Plaintiffs’ motion to modify the scheduling order to permit the 4 late filing of their motion for class certification. 5 ANALYSIS 6 When, as here, the Court “filed a pretrial scheduling order pursuant to Federal Rule of 7 Civil Procedure 16 which established” deadlines for motion practice and that deadline has passed, 8 the Rule 16 standard applies. Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc.,

, 607–08 (9th 9 Cir. 1992). In such instances, a party “must [] show ‘good cause’ for amendment [of the 10 scheduling order] under Rule 16(b).”

(citation omitted). In determining whether good 11 cause exists, “the existence or degree of prejudice to the party opposing the modification might 12 supply additional reasons to deny a motion, [but] the focus of the inquiry is upon the moving 13 party’s reasons for seeking modification.”

(citation omitted). “If that party was not 14 diligent, the inquiry should end.”

So, a party seeking to file a motion after the date set in the 15 Court’s scheduling order must first “request[] a modification of the pretrial order to allow the 16 filing of their motion.” U.S. Dominator, Inc. v. Factory Ship Robert E. Resoff,

, 17 1104 (9th Cir. 1985) superseded by statute on other grounds as recognized in Simpson v. Lear 18 Astronics Corp.,

(9th Cir. 1996). 19 Here, the record shows both that Plaintiffs acted diligently and that judicial efficiency 20 counsels in favor of permitting amendment to the scheduling order. Cummings v. Worktap, Inc., 21 No. 17-cv-06246-SBA,

, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 4, 2019). While Plaintiffs 22 obtained stipulated extensions prior to the deadline for filing their motion for class certification 23 several times, these extensions permitted Defendant to provide Plaintiffs with additional discovery 24 necessary for the class certification motion. (Dkt. No. 64-1 ¶¶ 10-16.) Furthermore, Plaintiffs 25 have taken depositions and engaged in meaningful discovery, all while discovery remains open. 26 (See generally id.) Indeed, that Plaintiffs filed their motion for class certification so soon after 27 learning of their deadline error demonstrates Plaintiffs were diligently working to draft and file 1 “los[t] track of the approaching filing deadline” and was unable to meet this deadline due to a 2 medical issue. (Id. ¶ 20.) Given Plaintiffs’ well-documented practice of seeking stipulated 3 extensions prior to the filing deadline, the Court finds Mr. Torrijos’ explanation credible. And 4 because resolution of the class certification motion will not prejudice Defendant and will utilize 5 the time and effort the parties have expended in over a year of discovery in this matter, good cause 6 exists to modify the scheduling order. 7 Defendant’s arguments to the contrary are unpersuasive. Defendant argues Plaintiffs’ 8 repeated request for stipulated extensions belies its assertions of diligence. Not so. As late as 9 March 2025, Defendant was still producing discovery relevant to Plaintiffs’ motion for class 10 certification. (Id. ¶ 16.) And, from the current record, Plaintiffs do not appear to have been 11 dragging their feet, but rather have been working diligently with Defendant to accommodate the 12 parties’ limitations in discovery. Defendant also argues Plaintiffs’ other named attorneys and 13 counsel of record should have “stepped in” to prevent the lapse in time. (Dkt. No. 65 at 4.) 14 Perhaps. But Plaintiffs have otherwise demonstrated diligence in pursuing this case by not 15 missing any prior deadlines. Finally, that Plaintiffs filed their motion for class certification five 16 weeks after the deadline and approximately two weeks after being made aware of the missed 17 deadline does not show lack of diligence in itself. Again, Plaintiffs have otherwise shown 18 diligence in litigating this case, belied by the latest missed deadline. That Plaintiffs soon after 19 realizing their mistake took steps to rectify the same shows Plaintiffs’ overall diligence, which is 20 “the focus of the inquiry” on such a motion. Johnson,

. 21 Defendant also argues that Plaintiffs must show “excusable neglect” pursuant to Federal 22 Rules of Civil Procedure 6(b)(1)(B). Assuming that standard applies, it has been met.

23 Excusable neglect exists where a party’s failure to comply with a deadline was negligent. See Lemoge v. United States,

, 24 1195 (9th Cir. 2009). There are at least four factors in determining whether neglect is excusable: (1) the danger of prejudice to the 25 opposing party; (2) the length of the delay and its potential impact on the proceedings; (3) the reason for the delay; and (4) whether the 26 movant acted in good faith. 27 Cap. One, Nat’l Ass’n v. SFR Invs. Pool 1, LLC, No. 17-CV-00604-RFB-BNW,

494177 (D. Nev. Jan. 27, 2022) (citing Bateman v. U.S. Postal Serv.,

, 1223–24 (9th 2 Cir. 2000)). Given the brief delay and because a trial date has not been scheduled, there is no 3 danger of prejudice to Defendant. Further, permitting the class certification motion will not 4 unduly delay the proceedings. And the reason for the delay—a medical issue—and how quickly 5 Plaintiffs filed the motion after the missed deadline was brought to their attention, show they acted 6 in good faith. 7 CONCLUSION 8 So, for the above reasons, Plaintiffs’ motion to modify the case management schedule is 9 GRANTED. Plaintiffs’ July 9, 2025 motion for class certification is now operative. The deadline 10 to file an opposition is October 3, 2025, Plaintiff’s reply is due October 17, 2025, and the Court 11 shall hear arguments on the motion on December 4, 2025 at 10:00 a.m. 12 This Order disposes of Docket No. 64. 13 IT IS SO ORDERED. 14 Dated: August 28, 2025 15 JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY 16 United States District Judge 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27