ORDER GRANTING IN PART PLAINTIFFS' ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION RE: MOTION TO SUBSTITUTE CLASS REPRESENTATIVES AND FOR CERTIFICATION OF NEW YORK AND ARIZONA CLASSES

Re: Dkt. No. 386

YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS, District Judge.

On August 19, 2019, the Court held a further case management conference in the above-captioned action. (See Dkt. No. 370.) During the conference, the Court indicated that it would allow plaintiffs "a very short, very short period of time . . . to identify an appropriate plaintiff or plaintiffs and any appropriate discovery and motion practice" relevant to the proposed New York and Arizona classes. (Dkt. No. 373 at 5:24-25-6:1-12.) The Court set a deadline for plaintiffs' motion to substitute the class representatives for the proposed New York and Arizona classes of September 9, 2019. (Id. at 13:7-9.) Plaintiffs so filed. (See Dkt. No. 376.) Therein, plaintiffs identified Messrs. Joseph Luzier and Aaron Allen as proposed class representatives for the New York class. (Id. at 3.)

According to plaintiffs' counsel, unexpected circumstances have caused a slight delay. Thus, now before the Court is plaintiffs' administrative motion regarding the September 9, 2019 motion to substitute class representatives.1 (Dkt. No. 386 ("Admin Motion".) Specifically, plaintiffs represent that proposed representatives Luzier and Allen "are no longer able to proceed as proposed plaintiffs and class representatives for the proposed New York class due to unexpected medical issues that arose after the Motion to Substitute was filed on September 9, 2019." (Id. at 2.) Based thereon, plaintiffs now seek leave of Court to file an amended motion to substitute, replacing Luzier and Allen with Stephen Sullivan as the proposed New York class representative. (Id. at 3.) Plaintiffs assert, and defendants do not dispute (see Dkt. No. 388 ("Opp.")), that they informed defendants that Sullivan's discovery responses would be served on the morning of September 30, 2019 and that Sullivan would be available for deposition on October 4, 9, 10, or 11, 2019. (Admin Motion at 4.) Plaintiffs also proposed continuing the deadline for defendants' response to the amended motion to substitute to October 14, 2019. (Id.) However, plaintiffs have not filed, as an exhibit to the administrative motion or otherwise, the amended motion to substitute that they would like to file. On Friday, October 4, 2019, defendants filed their opposition to the pending administrative motion.2 (Opp.)

In light of the Luzier and Allen's health issues, and the speed with which plaintiffs moved to substitute, the Court finds the good cause standard satisfied. (See Admin Motion.) See Branch Banking & TR. Co. v. D.M.S.I., LLC, 871 F.3d 751, 764-65 (9th Cir. 2017) ("The good cause standard of Rule 16(b) primarily considers the diligence of the party seeking the amendment."). However, the Court is not convinced that the proposed schedule provides sufficient time for the defendants. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS IN PART plaintiffs' administrative motion. Defendant's opposition to the motion to amend is vacated pending further Court order. The parties shall meet and confer and provide the Court with a proposed scheduling order no later than close of business on Wednesday, October 9, 2019.

This Order terminates Docket Numbers 385, 386, and 387.

IT IS SO ORDERED.