Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Mitchell Seeley, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, sued Loomis Armored US, LLC in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, No. 2:26-cv-02865-TLN-CKD. The action is a putative class action in which jurisdiction is predicated on 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332(d), 1441, and 1446, and the order states that jurisdiction and venue are not contested. All named defendants have been served, and no further service of process is permitted without leave of court, good cause having been shown.
After the parties filed a Joint Statement, Chief United States District Judge Troy L. Nunley issued an Amended Pretrial Scheduling Order on October 19, 2026. The order also bars joinder of additional parties and amendments to the pleadings without leave of court, good cause having been shown, and it establishes a schedule for class-certification discovery, expert witness disclosures, the class certification motion, and post-certification activity.
The Court’s Holding
The central ruling is the bifurcation of discovery. The Court found that bifurcation is necessary in order to best determine whether the elements of class certification are met, and it ordered that all discovery in Phase I be limited to facts relevant to whether the action should be certified as a class action, to be completed by October 15, 2027. The order defines "completed" to mean that all depositions have been taken, discovery disputes have been resolved by appropriate order, and any ordered discovery has been obeyed, and it requires all motions to compel to be noticed on the magistrate judge's calendar under the local rules.
The order then sets the expert and briefing schedule. Counsel must designate in writing, file, and serve the name, address, and area of expertise of each expert proposed for class certification no later than thirty days after the close of discovery, accompanied by a signed written report complying with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2)(B). Within thirty days after an adverse party's designation, a party may designate a supplemental rebuttal expert, but that right applies only to a party who has not previously disclosed an expert witness on the date set for expert witness disclosure. The Motion for Class Certification is due no later than 180 days after the close of certification discovery; Defendant's opposition is due within 28 days, and failure to timely oppose may be deemed consent to the motion and the Court may dispose of it summarily; Plaintiff may reply within 21 days after the opposition is filed.
Finally, the order closes the schedule: all other necessary dates and deadlines will be set by a Supplemental Pretrial Scheduling Order issued after the Court rules on the class certification motion, and the amended order becomes final without further order of the Court unless objections are filed within fourteen days of service, with parties wishing to modify deadlines directed to file a stipulation and proposed order.
Key Takeaways
- Discovery is bifurcated: Phase I is limited to facts relevant to class certification and must be completed by October 15, 2027, with motions to compel noticed on the magistrate judge's calendar.
- No further service of process and no joinder of parties or amendments to pleadings are permitted without leave of court for good cause.
- Class-certification expert designations with Rule 26(a)(2)(B) reports are due 30 days after discovery closes; supplemental rebuttal experts are due 30 days after the adverse designation only for a party that has not previously disclosed an expert on the date set for expert disclosure.
- The class certification motion is due 180 days after certification discovery closes; an untimely opposition may be deemed consent and the motion disposed of summarily under E.D. Cal. L.R. 230(c).
- The amended order becomes final without further order unless objections are filed within 14 days of service.
Why It Matters
The bifurcation ruling is the substantive core of the order: by limiting Phase I discovery to class-certification facts, the Court ensures the Rule 23 question is resolved before the parties incur merits discovery, a common case-management approach in class litigation. The order deliberately leaves post-certification deadlines open for a supplemental scheduling order, so the October 19, 2026 order governs only the front end of the case.
Because the order becomes final unless objected to within fourteen days of service, practitioners should treat the Phase I deadlines as firm absent a stipulation and proposed order approved by the Court.