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