Doe 1 et al v. Nielsen et al

Filing 118

ORDER DENYING 117 OPPOSED MOTION TO STAY REMAINING MOTION TO DISMISS DEADLINES. Signed by Judge Beth Labson Freeman on 10/17/2018.(blflc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/17/2018)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5

SAN JOSE DIVISION

6
7

JANE DOE 1, ET AL.,
Plaintiffs,

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Case No. 18-cv-02349-BLF

v.
KIRSTJEN NIELSEN, et al.,
Defendants.

ORDER DENYING OPPOSED
MOTION TO STAY REMAINING
MOTION TO DISMISS DEADLINES
[Re: ECF 117]

12
13

In the present motion, Defendants request that the Court stay the deadline for them to reply

14

to Plaintiffs’ opposition to Defendants’ motion to dismiss and to reset the hearing on Defendants’

15

motion to dismiss until “at least two weeks after the jurisdictional discovery period closes.” See

16

ECF 117. This motion is DENIED. Because Defendants recognize that the results of

17

jurisdictional discovery are “intricately linked and fundamental to resolution of the claims

18

Defendants raised in their dismissal motion,” Mot. at 2, the appropriate course of action is for

19

Defendants to withdraw their pending motion to dismiss and refile it after the conclusion of the

20

jurisdictional discovery period and to stipulate with Plaintiffs that a motion to dismiss at that time

21

would be timely filed under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

22
23

IT IS SO ORDERED.

24
25
26
27
28

Dated: October 17, 2018
______________________________________
BETH LABSON FREEMAN
United States District Judge