Sunderland et al v. PharmaCare U.S., Inc. et al

1
3:23-cv-01318-JES-AHG
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
LINDA SUNDERLAND,
individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
PHARMACARE U.S., INC.,
Defendant.
Case No.: 3:23-cv-01318-JES-AHG
ORDER RESOLVING OPPOSED
JOINT MOTION, AND GRANTING
IN PART AND DENYING IN PART
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
CONTINUANCE
[ECF No. 121]
Before the Court is the parties’ opposed joint motion regarding Plaintiff’s request
for a continuance. ECF No. 112. Plaintiff seeks an order extending certain deadlines
regarding class notice, which Defendant opposes in part. Id.
Parties seeking to continue deadlines in the scheduling order, or other deadlines set
forth by the Court, must demonstrate good cause. FED. R. CIV. P. 16(b)(4) (“A schedule
may be modified only for good cause and with the judge’s consent”); FED. R. CIV. P. 6(b)
(“When an act may or must be done within a specified time, the court may, for good cause,
extend the time”); see also ECF No. 116 at 8 (Scheduling Order, stating that “[t]he dates
Case 3:23-cv-01318-JES-AHG Document 122 Filed 12/07/25 PageID.<pageID>
Page 1 of 5

2
3:23-cv-01318-JES-AHG
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
[] set forth herein will not be modified except for good cause shown”); Chmb.R. at 2
(stating that any request for continuance requires “[a] showing of good cause for the
request”).
Courts have broad discretion in determining whether there is good cause. See, e.g.,
Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 607 (9th Cir. 1992); Liguori v.
Hansen, No. 2:11cv492-GMN-CWH, 2012 WL 760747, at *12 (D. Nev. Mar. 6, 2012).
“Good cause” is a non-rigorous standard that has been construed broadly across procedural
and statutory contexts. Ahanchian v. Xenon Pictures, Inc., 624 F.3d 1253, 1259 (9th Cir.
2010). The good cause standard focuses on the diligence of the party seeking to amend the
scheduling order and the reasons for seeking modification. Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609
(“[T]he focus of the inquiry is upon the moving party’s reasons for seeking modification.
… If that party was not diligent, the inquiry should end.”). Therefore, “a party demonstrates
good cause by acting diligently to meet the original deadlines set forth by the court.” Doe
v. Wyndham Hotels & Resorts, Inc., No. 3;24-cv-217-JLS-AHG, 2025 WL 2881574, at
*1–*2 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 9, 2025) (quoting Merck v. Swift Transp. Co., No. 16-cv-1103-PHX-
ROS, 2018 WL 4492362, at *2 (D. Ariz. Sept. 19, 2018)).
Here, Plaintiff’s counsel represents to the Court that Plaintiff Linda Sunderland, who
represents the New York class, is no longer willing or able to act as class representative.
ECF No. 121 at 2, 9. Though Plaintiff’s counsel sought to speak with Ms. Sunderland
about her decision, she ultimately decided to cancel their scheduled call, “reiterating her
wish to stop participating in the lawsuit” and no further communication has occurred. Id.
Thus, Plaintiff filed the instant motion. Since Plaintiff’s counsel “is working fastidiously
to locate” a replacement class representative for Ms. Sunderland, Plaintiff seeks an
extension of certain deadlines. Id. at 2. Specifically, Plaintiff seeks to extend the deadlines
related to class notice. Id. Defendant opposes Plaintiff’s request in part, explaining that the
instant motion and its underlying issues regarding Ms. Sunderland’s replacement class
representative, should have been brought pursuant to the dates set forth in the Scheduling
Order and not in a separate motion. Id. at 5–6.
Case 3:23-cv-01318-JES-AHG Document 122 Filed 12/07/25 PageID.<pageID>
Page 2 of 5

3
3:23-cv-01318-JES-AHG
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
After the October 24, 2025, Case Management Conference, the Court issued a
Scheduling Order, which included deadlines relating to class notice. ECF No. 116.
Specifically, the Court required that Plaintiff provide Defendant with her proposed notice
plan, including the form of the notice and how it will be distributed to class members, by
November 10, 2025. Id. at 1. Plaintiff’s counsel has represented that they complied with
this deadline. ECF No. 121 at 9. By November 19, 2025, Defendant was required to
respond to Plaintiff regarding whether it agreed or disagreed with Plaintiff’s plan. ECF
No. 116 at 1. If the parties agreed, they were required to file an Unopposed Joint Motion
for Approval of Notice Plan by December 3, 2025. Id. If the parties disagreed, the Court
set deadlines for the filing of a Joint Motion for Resolution of Dispute Regarding Class
Notice Plan for determination by the District Judge. Id. at 2. Plaintiff’s portion of the
proposed joint motion was to be served on Defendant by December 3, 2025; Defendant’s
portion of the proposed joint motion was to be served on Plaintiff by December 15, 2025;
and the final joint motion was to be filed by December 16, 2025. Id. Defendant argues that
the instant motion should have been filed in the manner set forth above—by the
December 16, 2025, deadline—to include all the issues of the parties, such as any notice
plan disputes and whether Ms. Sunderland should be replaced as class representative or if
decertification is warranted. ECF No. 121 at 5.
Here, Plaintiff argues that, because Ms. Sunderland has withdrawn as the class
representative, counsel cannot meet the deadlines set forth above regarding class notice.
ECF No. 121 at 2–4. The Court disagrees. In the notice plan, the identity of the named
plaintiff only serves as a heading, i.e., a name to put in the “plaintiff” section. All of the
other elements of notice will be the same, such as the form and substance of the notice and
how it will be distributed to class members, regardless of the name of the class
representative. The Court finds the parties can finalize the notice, or seek resolution of
disputes regarding the notice, while Plaintiff seeks a new class representative. Thus, the
Court does not find good cause to extend the deadlines relating to class notice and DENIES
Plaintiff’s motion. Given that certain deadlines have passed while the parties were drafting
Case 3:23-cv-01318-JES-AHG Document 122 Filed 12/07/25 PageID.<pageID>
Page 3 of 5

4
3:23-cv-01318-JES-AHG
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
the instant motion, the Court slightly modifies the deadlines as follows: (1) the parties must
continue to meet and confer regarding Plaintiff’s notice plan; (2) if there are no disputes
regarding the notice plan, aside from any disputes regarding the identity of the class
representative, an Unopposed Joint Motion for Approval of Notice Plan must be filed by
December 10, 2025; and (3) if there are disputes regarding the notice plan, Plaintiff must
serve her portion of the proposed Joint Motion for Resolution of Dispute Regarding Class
Notice Plan on Defendant by December 10, 2025; Defendant must serve its portion of the
proposed joint motion on Plaintiff by December 17, 2025; Plaintiff and Defendant will
have the opportunity to exchange minor1 changes on December 18, 2025; and the final
Joint Motion must be filed2 by December 18, 2025.
The Court does find good cause to GRANT IN PART Plaintiff’s request, insofar as
it alludes to seeking an extension of the scheduling order for filing a motion to amend the
complaint to substitute a class representative. The Court, however, finds Plaintiff’s
requested 60-day continuance to be unnecessarily lengthy. Instead, given that
Ms. Sunderland notified counsel that she no longer wished to serve as a class representative
nearly one month ago, the Court finds a three-week extension to be adequate. As such,
Plaintiff must file her Motion to Amend the Complaint to Add a New Named Plaintiff by
December 29, 2025. Counsel for the moving party must obtain a motion hearing date from
the law clerk of the judge who will hear the motion. The period of time between the date
you request a motion date and the hearing date may vary from one district judge to another.
Please plan accordingly. Failure to make a timely request for a motion date may result in
the motion not being heard.
1 The parties are expected to fully articulate their positions in their initial draft of their
portions of the joint motion. The purpose of the brief time between the exchange of drafts
and the filing deadline is to allow the parties to review and understand each other’s
positions and make minor adjustments to their portions in response.
2 The joint motion must be no longer than fourteen (14) pages total, excluding exhibits,
with no more than seven (7) pages from each side.
Case 3:23-cv-01318-JES-AHG Document 122 Filed 12/07/25 PageID.<pageID>
Page 4 of 5

5
3:23-cv-01318-JES-AHG
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
All other dates, deadlines, and procedures set forth in the Court’s Scheduling Order
(ECF No. 116) remain in place. The Court notes that neither party sought an extension of
the December 16, 2025, fact discovery deadline. See ECF No. 121. At this time, the Court
will leave the remainder of the schedule unchanged. Should the District Judge grant
Plaintiff’s motion to amend the complaint, the parties may file a joint motion to amend the
scheduling order regarding fact discovery so that Defendant may take discovery of the new
plaintiff.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: December 7, 2025
Case 3:23-cv-01318-JES-AHG Document 122 Filed 12/07/25 PageID.<pageID>
Page 5 of 5