Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-05566/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-05566-9/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 791
Nature of Suit: Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA)
Cause of Action: 28:1001 E.R.I.S.A.

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BEVERLY KANAWI, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

BECHTEL CORP., et al.,

Defendants. /

No. C 06-05566 CRB

ORDER RE: MOTION FOR 

CLASS CERTIFICATION

In an order dated May 15, 2007, the Court denied Defendants’ motion to dismiss the

Second Amended Complaint and instructed the parties to proceed with discovery. The Court

deferred ruling on Plaintiff’s motion for class certification, as well as various arguments

made by Defendants in their moving papers, until after the parties had a chance to exchange

information and develop the record. As the parties recognized in their recent case

management statements, the reason for the Court’s initial deferral of the motion was to allow

the parties to develop “a more complete factual record.” Pls.’ Case Mgmt. Conf. Statement

at 2; Defs.’ Case Mgmt. Conf. Statement at 2. 

At a case management conference held August 24, 2007, the Court denied Plaintiff’s

motion for class certification without prejudice. As the Court explained at the hearing, the

denial without prejudice was not an expression of any view, one way or the other, on the

merits of Plaintiff’s motion. Instead, the Court denied the motion without prejudice for

Case 3:06-cv-05566-CRB Document 89 Filed 08/27/07 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

G:\CRBALL\2006\5566\order re class certification.wpd 2

administrative reasons. If Plaintiffs are prepared to proceed with their motion for class

certification now that there has been an opportunity for discovery, they may renew their

motion at any time. If Plaintiffs feel that the moving papers submitted in support of their

original motion are adequate for the Court to decide the motion, then they need only to

renotice the motion for a hearing, and Defendants will be permitted an opportunity to amend

their opposition as they consider appropriate. Further, if both parties feel that the issue

already has been adequately briefed and that none of the materials exchanged or obtained

during discovery would be pertinent to the Court’s ruling on a motion for class certification,

then they may so stipulate and the Court will take the motion under submission based on the

papers already filed. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 27, 2007 

CHARLES R. BREYER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:06-cv-05566-CRB Document 89 Filed 08/27/07 Page 2 of 2