Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Plaintiff Carlos Moreno filed a putative class action against C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. and related defendants in the Northern District of California. Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 45) and a motion to stay class certification briefing while that motion was decided (Dkt. No. 46). Defendants also filed a motion to shorten the briefing schedule for the motion to stay to ensure it would be decided before plaintiff's motion for class certification was due (Dkt. No. 47). The court had previously discussed the sequencing of these motions at a case management conference on January 7, 2026.
At the case management conference, the court indicated it made sense to adjudicate class certification before summary judgment. The court's standing order contemplates resolving summary judgment before class certification only where cross-motions on a narrow legal issue will likely be case-determinative and avoid the bulk of discovery costs. Defendants' motion to stay did not address the concerns raised at the conference about issuing a summary judgment ruling before it could bind the entire class.
The Court’s Holding
The court denied the motion to stay class certification briefing, holding that defendants failed to show it is more practicable to litigate summary judgment first under the standard set forth in Wright v. Schock, 742 F.2d 541, 543 (9th Cir. 1984). The court emphasized that Rule 23(c)(1)(A) requires deciding class certification at an early practicable time to allow resolution of issues pertaining to an entire class on a classwide basis. A summary judgment ruling before class certification would not bind absent class members and could lead to duplicative litigation, which Rule 23 is designed to avoid.
The court denied the motion to shorten time as moot in light of the denial of the motion to stay. The court denied the motion for summary judgment without prejudice to re-filing following the court's order on class certification. The court found this was not the situation contemplated in its standing order where early summary judgment on a narrow legal issue would be case-determinative and avoid substantial discovery costs. The court noted defendants' motion did not demonstrate that plaintiff Moreno is likely to be in a different position from the proposed class members.
Key Takeaways
- The court prioritizes class certification before summary judgment to comply with Rule 23(c)(1)(A)'s mandate to decide certification at an early practicable time.
- A summary judgment ruling before class certification cannot bind absent class members and risks duplicative litigation contrary to Rule 23's purpose.
- The court's standing order permits early summary judgment only when cross-motions on a narrow legal issue are likely case-determinative and would avoid substantial discovery costs.
- Defendants bear the burden of showing it is more practicable to litigate summary judgment first under Ninth Circuit precedent.
- The summary judgment motion is denied without prejudice and may be re-filed after the court rules on class certification.
Why It Matters
This order reinforces the procedural principle that class certification should generally be resolved before merits dispositions in putative class actions, consistent with Rule 23's design to prevent duplicative litigation and ensure classwide binding effect. The court's reliance on its standing order and the Wright v. Schock standard provides a clear framework for when early summary judgment may be appropriate in class actions—namely, only when it resolves a narrow, case-determinative legal issue that would obviate extensive discovery. The decision preserves the plaintiff's ability to pursue class certification while leaving defendants' summary judgment arguments available for later adjudication.