Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-02841/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-02841-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

XIUFANG SITU, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

MICHAEL O. LEAVITT,

Defendant.

NO. C06-2841 TEH 

ORDER VACATING

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR

CLASS CERTIFICATION

WITHOUT PREJUDICE

The Court is in receipt of Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification, Defendant’s

opposition thereto, and Plaintiffs’ unopposed request for an extension of time and page limits

for their reply brief. Upon careful review of the parties’ papers, the Court finds good cause

to exercise its inherent discretion to manage its docket by VACATING Plaintiffs’ motion for

class certification without prejudice. As Defendant points out in his opposition papers, the

deadline for responding to the complaint is not until June 30. Because Defendant intends to

file a motion to dismiss some or all of Plaintiffs’ claims, the Court agrees that it would be

prudent to defer consideration of Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification until after

Defendant’s potentially dispositive motion is resolved. This is especially the case where, as

here, Defendant intends to raise challenges to the Court’s jurisdiction. As the Ninth Circuit

has explained, “[u]ntil [plaintiffs] can show themselves aggrieved in the sense that they are

entitled to the relief sought, there is no occasion for the court to wrestle with the problems

presented in considering whether the action may be maintained on behalf of the [proposed]

class. Until a claim on their own behalf is alleged by the named plaintiffs they have failed to

allege an actual case or controversy.” Boyle v. Madigan, 492 F.2d 1180, 1182 (9th Cir.

1974).

Case 3:06-cv-02841-TEH Document 12 Filed 06/02/06 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

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification is VACATED without prejudice. To the

extent that Plaintiffs’ case survives Defendant’s intended motion to dismiss, Plaintiffs may

renew their motion after the Court issues its ruling on Defendant’s motion.

2. Plaintiffs’ request for an extension of time and page limits is VACATED as moot. 

Plaintiffs may renew their request at the appropriate time, but the parties are advised that the

Court will not grant a stipulation to continue the briefing schedule without a corresponding

continuance of the hearing date.

3. Defendant shall, as indicated in his opposition, file his intended motion to dismiss

on or before June 30, 2006. The motion shall be noticed for hearing on Monday, August 7,

2006, at 10:00 AM, unless the parties are unavailable on that date and wish to schedule the

hearing for a subsequent Monday. The briefing schedule under the Civil Local Rules shall

apply unless otherwise ordered.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 06/02/06 

THELTON E. HENDERSON, JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case 3:06-cv-02841-TEH Document 12 Filed 06/02/06 Page 2 of 2