Doe I et al v. Cisco Systems, Inc. et al

Filing 79

ORDER DENYING 76 Motion to Reschedule Briefing. The court orders the Clerk of the Court to TERMINATE Defendants Motion to Dismiss the First Amended Complaint 67 without prejudice to such motion being re-filed. The associated motion hearing scheduled for February 17, 2012, is VACATED. The Case Management Conference for that date remains as currently scheduled. The Clerk of the Court shall also TERMINATE Defendants Motion to Dismiss the original Complaint 49 as such motion is now moot. Signed by Judge Edward J. Davila on 11/10/2011. (ejdlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/9/2011)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 SAN JOSE DIVISION CASE NO. 5:11-cv-02449 EJD DOE I, et. al., 11 ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO RESCHEDULE BRIEFING Plaintiff(s), For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 12 13 v. CISCO SYSTEMS, INC., et. al., [Docket Item No. 76] 14 Defendant(s). 15 16 / Presently before the court is Plaintiffs’ administrative Motion to Reschedule Briefing (the 17 “Motion,” Docket Item No. 76) for Defendant’s currently-pending Motion to Dismiss the First 18 Amended Complaint (Docket Item No. 67). Plaintiffs request an order allowing Defendants’ Motion 19 to Dismiss to proceed in two phases. During the first phase, the parties would brief, and the court 20 would decide, three discrete issues of justiciability. The Motion to Dismiss would then be held in 21 abeyance until some time after the Supreme Court issues its opinion in two cases being considered 22 in tandem, namely Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co., 621 F.3d 111 (2nd Cir. 2010), cert. 23 granted, 79 U.S.L.W. 3728 (U.S. Oct. 17, 2011) (No. 10-1491), and Mohamad v. Rajoub, 634 F.3d 24 604 (D.C. Cir. 2011), cert. granted, 80 U.S.L.W. 3059 (U.S. Oct 17, 2011) (No. 11-88), at which 25 time the parties would brief, and the court would decide, the remaining dismissal issues during the 26 second phase. For their part, Defendants filed a partial opposition (Docket Item No. 78) to the 27 Motion, requesting the court stay the Motion to Dismiss in its entirety. 28 The court has carefully reviewed Plaintiffs’ Motion and Defendants’ opposition. While the 1 CASE NO. 5:11-cv-02449 EJD ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO RESCHEDULE BRIEFING 1 court finds it expedient to postpone a decision on the issues raised in the Motion to Dismiss while 2 the Supreme Court considers Kiobel and Mohamad, the court nonetheless finds neither the option 3 presented by Plaintiffs nor that presented by Defendants appropriate to these circumstances. With 4 regard to Plaintiffs’ request, the court is not inclined to allow one motion to proceed in-part now and 5 in-part at some unknown time in the future. For all of the reasons stated by Defendants in their 6 opposition, the issues raised in the Motion to Dismiss must be considered simultaneously. 7 As to Defendants’ request, the court is not inclined to simply stay the Motion to Dismiss this juncture is an undefined but seemingly indefinite period of time. In addition, the Supreme 10 Court’s decision will affect the Motion to Dismiss in one way or another, and the arguments for 11 For the Northern District of California altogether. Doing so would leave the Motion to Dismiss pending on the court’s docket for what at 9 United States District Court 8 dismissal may require extensive revision depending on the outcome. It makes little sense to leave a 12 motion pending which may at some point be rendered ineffective. 13 Accordingly, the court orders the Clerk of the Court to TERMINATE Defendants’ Motion to 14 Dismiss the First Amended Complaint (Docket Item No. 67) without prejudice to such motion being 15 re-filed after the Supreme Court issues its opinion in Kiobel and Mohamad. The associated motion 16 hearing scheduled for February 17, 2012, is VACATED. The Case Management Conference for 17 that date remains as currently scheduled. 18 The Clerk of the Court shall also TERMINATE Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss the original 19 Complaint (Docket Item No. 49) as such motion is now moot. 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. 21 Dated: November 9, 2011 EDWARD J. DAVILA United States District Judge 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 CASE NO. 5:11-cv-02449 EJD ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO RESCHEDULE BRIEFING