Barnes et al v. District of Columbia

MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 7 First MOTION to Certify Class

D.D.C.November 6, 2006

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ____________________________________ ) CARL A. BARNES, et. al., ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) Civil Action Number: 06-315 (RCL) v. ) Date: November 6, 2006 DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ) ) Defendant. ) ____________________________________) DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR ENLARGEMENT OF TIME TO RESPOND TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 6 (b) (1), the Defendant, District of Columbia (hereinafter the “District”), by counsel, hereby respectfully requests an enlargement of time to respond to the Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification, which would permit defendant to file its response thirty (30) days subsequent to this Court’s ruling on the pending motion to dismiss the plaintiffs’ second amended complaint or in the alternative for summary judgment. 1. Plaintiffs filed their class action complaint on February 23, 2006, an Amended Complaint on February 24, 2006, and a return of service dated May 21, 2006. On May 24, 2006, Plaintiffs’ filed a Motion to Amend/Correct the Amended Complaint. 2. This Court granted leave to plaintiffs to amend their first amended complaint and to file a second amended complaint by order dated June 6, 2006. (Dkt. 10). On June 7, 2006, plaintiffs filed their second amended complaint. (Dkt. 12). 3. Defense counsel entered her appearance on June 6, 2006. Upon a review of the docket on that date, she noted a Motion for Class Certification, dated May 24, Case 1:06-cv-00315-RCL Document 26 Filed 11/06/2006 Page 1 of 6 2006 on the ECF docket. As of that date, that Motion for Class Certification had not been served on defendant, either by hand, mail, electronically or otherwise. 4. Despite this lack of service, as a cautionary measure, defense counsel thought it prudent to file a Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to the Motion for Class Certification for the following reasons: a. Defense counsel was scheduled for leave from work for the period June 8- 16, 2006; b. Concern of possible adverse action on the filed Motion in her absence; c. Additional time was needed to properly investigate and research the appropriateness of class certification and to prepare an appropriate response; and, d. The enlargement of time requested was only 45 days beyond the date Defendant was required to answer or otherwise respond to the last amended complaint. 5. On July 7, 2006, defendant filed its response to plaintiffs’ second amended complaint in the form of a motion to dismiss or in the alternative for summary judgment. (Dkt. 14). On July 31, 2006, plaintiffs filed their memorandum in opposition, to which defendant filed its reply brief on August 8, 2006. (Dkt. 21). These dispositive motions are still pending before this Court. 6. On August 28, 2006, this Court issued an order granting defendants unopposed motion to extend time to respond to plaintiffs’ motion for class certification for a period not to exceed 75 days from the date of the order, which was the time period requested by defendant in its original motion to extend time. (Dkt. 23). Case 1:06-cv-00315-RCL Document 26 Filed 11/06/2006 Page 2 of 6 7. Defendant requests an additional enlargement of time to respond to plaintiffs’ motion for class certification for the following reasons: a. While in the process of preparing the defendant’s response to plaintiffs’ motion, defense counsel recognized that a brief period of additional time would be necessary to fully brief the issues. b. More importantly, however, is the issue of the outstanding dispositive motions. At this time, defendant requests that the Court permit an enlargement of time until after this Court issues its ruling on the dispositive motions. The Court’s ruling may obviate the need for responding to class certification or cause the defendant to tailor its response accordingly. 8. This request is not submitted for the purpose of creating delay. 9. Counsel for the Defendant requested consent from the Plaintiffs’ counsel prior to filing the instant motion. Plaintiffs’ counsel agreed to an extension of time to respond only if discovery could commence on November 2, 2006, with depositions commencing on November 13, 2006. Defendant submits that discovery is inappropriate while a dispositive motion is pending and did not agree to Plaintiffs’ counsel’s proposal. WHEREFORE, an enlargement of time to respond to the motion for class certification until thirty (30) days after this Court rules on Defendant’s pending dispositive motion is respectfully requested of this court. Respectfully submitted, EUGENE A. ADAMS Interim Attorney General for the District of Columbia Case 1:06-cv-00315-RCL Document 26 Filed 11/06/2006 Page 3 of 6 GEORGE C. VALENTINE Deputy Attorney General Civil Litigation Division RICHARD S. LOVE, D.C. Bar No. 340455, Assistant Attorney General, District of Columbia Chief, Equity I __________/s/________________________ BY: DENISE J. BAKER [493414] Assistant Attorney General Equity I Section Civil Litigation Division 441 4th Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20001 (202) 442-9887 (telephone) (202) 727-0431 (facsimile) CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, hereby certify that on this 6th day of November 2006 I have sent a true copy of Defendant’s Motion to Extend Time to Respond to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification by ECF filing to: William Claiborne 717 D Street, NW Suite 210 Washington, DC 20004 _____/s/__________________________ Denise J. Baker Assistant Attorney General Case 1:06-cv-00315-RCL Document 26 Filed 11/06/2006 Page 4 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ____________________________________ ) CARL A. BARNES, et. al., ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) Case Number: 06-315 (RCL) v. ) Date: June 7, 2006 DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ) ) Defendant. ) ____________________________________) MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO EXTEND TIME TO RESPOND TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION 1. Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b). 2. The record herein. 3. Absence of prejudice to the parties. 4. The equitable powers of this Court. Respectfully submitted, EUGENE A. ADAMS Interim Attorney General for the District of Columbia GEORGE C. VALENTINE Deputy Attorney General Civil Litigation Division RICHARD S. LOVE [340455] Chief, Equity I ____/s/________________________ DENISE J. BAKER [493414] Assistant Attorney General, DC 441 Fourth Street, NW Sixth Floor South Washington, DC 20001 202-442-9887 (telephone) Case 1:06-cv-00315-RCL Document 26 Filed 11/06/2006 Page 5 of 6 (202) 727-0431 (facsimile) Denise.baker@dc.gov Case 1:06-cv-00315-RCL Document 26 Filed 11/06/2006 Page 6 of 6