Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-01307/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-01307-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:2201 Declaratory Judgement

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CATHOLIC CHARITIES CYO

(SAN FRANCISCO), et al.,

Plaintiffs, No. C 07-1307 PJH

v. ORDER

MICHAEL CHERTOFF, Secretary, 

U.S. Department of Homeland

Security, et al.,

Defendants.

_______________________________/

Plaintiffs filed this proposed class action on March 6, 2007. On April 10, 2007,

plaintiffs filed certificates of service, showing service of the summons and complaint on all

defendants by certified mail on March 15, 2007. On April 18, 2007, plaintiffs filed a motion

for class certification. 

On May 3, 2007, defendants filed a request for additional time to file their opposition

to the motion for class certification. Defendants, whose answer (not yet filed) is due 60

days after service of the summons and complaint, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(a)(3), have

indicated that they intend to file a motion to dismiss no later than May 18, 2007. Plaintiffs

filed no opposition to the request within the time allowed under the local rules. See Civil

L.R. 7-11(b). 

In view of the fact that defendants have not answered the complaint and seek to file

a motion to dismiss in lieu of an answer, and in view of the fact that the court has not yet

Case 4:07-cv-01307-PJH Document 16 Filed 05/09/07 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

2

held a case management conference in this case, the court finds the motion for class

certification to be premature. 

Rather than granting defendants’ request for an extension of time to respond to the

motion, the court prefers that plaintiffs withdraw the motion and refile it after the court has

ruled on the motion to dismiss. If plaintiffs are unwilling to withdraw the motion, and fail to

do so by May 16, 2007, the court will deny the motion without prejudice to refiling as

indicated above. 

The date for the hearing on plaintiffs’ motion, previously set for Wednesday, May 23,

2007, is VACATED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 9, 2007 ______________________________

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

Case 4:07-cv-01307-PJH Document 16 Filed 05/09/07 Page 2 of 2