Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-02037/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-02037-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 29:185 Labor/Mgt. Relations (Contracts)

---

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

This is a class action case. On January 9, 2014, Plaintiff filed a motion to certify the class. 

See Doc. No. 4. Also on January 9, 2014, Plaintiff’s counsel filed the declaration of Gina 

Cervantes in support of the motion, but improperly entered the declaration in the docket as a 

motion. See Doc. No. 5. 

On May 14, 2014, this Court adopted a Findings and Recommendation and stayed this 

case. See Doc. No. 23. However, Plaintiff’s motion to certify the class remains pending. 

The Court cannot have motions pending in a case that has been stayed. The Court will 

administratively deny Plaintiff’s motion to certify, but the denial will be without prejudice to 

refiling the motion once the stay has been lifted. To be clear, the denial of the motion to certify is 

not on the merits. 

Additionally, for administrative and docketing purposes, the Court will deny Doc. No. 5 

because it is not a motion at all. The “denial” will not have the effect of striking the declaration. 

If Plaintiff refiles his motion to certify, the Court will consider the Cervantes declaration. 

VICTOR LOPEZ,

Plaintiff

v.

PARAGON SYSTEMS, INC., et al.,

Defendants

CASE NO. 1:13-CV-2037 AWI MJS 

ORDER ON MOTION TO CERTIFY 

AND CERVANTES DECLARATION

(Doc. Nos. 4, 5)

Case 1:13-cv-02037-DAD-MJS Document 25 Filed 09/23/14 Page 1 of 2
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. Plaintiff’s motion to certify (Doc. No. 4) is DENIED without prejudice to refiling once the 

stay in this case is lifted; and

2. The declaration that was entered as a motion (Doc. No. 5) is “denied” as having been 

erroneously entered as a motion.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 19, 2014 

 SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-02037-DAD-MJS Document 25 Filed 09/23/14 Page 2 of 2