Lewis et al v. Cain et al

Filing 317

ORDER: Because the class certification issue must be decided before dispositive motions, and the Court believes that resolution of this issue may (or may not) alter the facts and /or analysis regarding the dispositive motions filed in this case, the Court will deny the 193 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Plaintiffs ADA Claims, 194 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Plaintiffs Eighth Amendment Claims, and the Defendants 261 Motion for Summary Judgment without preju dice. Following the class certification hearing, the Parties are granted leave of Court to re-urge these motions by reference to record document numbers, without the necessity of re-filing same. Should supplemental briefing be required based on the class certification determination, such leave is granted to file supplemental briefs not to exceed 15 pages without leave of Court. Signed by Judge Shelly D. Dick on 9/21/2017. (LLH)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

JOSEPH LEWIS, JR., ET AL.

CIVIL DOCKET NO.: 3:15-CV-318

VERSUS

JUDGE: SHELLY DICK

BURL CAIN, ET AL.

MAGISTRATE: RICHARD BOURGEOIS

ORDER
This matter is before the Court on the pending Motion to Certify Class1 and class
certification hearing set for November 1, 2017. It is the general rule that the issue of class
certification issues should be addressed before consideration of a dispositive motion.2
Further, at the class certification stage, “the merits of Plaintiff's claims are not an issue
before the court, ‘evidence relevant to the commonality requirement is often intertwined
with the merits.’3 Thus, it sometimes is necessary ‘to probe behind the pleadings before
coming to rest on the certification question.’”4
Because the class certification issue must be decided before dispositive motions,
and the Court believes that resolution of this issue may (or may not) alter the facts and/or
analysis regarding the dispositive motions filed in this case, the Court will deny the Motion
for Partial Summary Judgment on Plaintiffs’ ADA Claims,5 the Motion for Partial Summary

1

Rec. Doc. No. 133.
See Bowling v. Pfizer, Inc., 142 F.R.D. 302 (S.D. Ohio).
3
Briggs v. Countrywide Funding Corp., 188 F.R.D. 645, 647 (M.D. Alabama)(quoting Nelson v. United
States Steel Corp., 709 F.2d 675, 679 (11th Cir.1983)).
4
Id. (quoting General Tel. Co. v. Falcon, 457 U.S. 147, 160, 102 S.Ct. 2364, 72 L.Ed.2d 740 (1982)).
5
Rec. Doc. No. 193.
2

Document Number: 41143 
Page 1 of 2 

Judgment on Plaintiffs’ Eighth Amendment Claims,6 and the Defendants’ Motion for
Summary Judgment7 without prejudice. Following the class certification hearing, the
Parties are granted leave of Court to re-urge these motions by reference to record
document numbers, without the necessity of re-filing same. Should supplemental briefing
be required based on the class certification determination, such leave is granted to file
supplemental briefs not to exceed 15 pages without leave of Court.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Baton Rouge, Louisiana, this 21st day of September, 2017.

S

________________________________
SHELLY D. DICK, DISTRICT JUDGE
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

6
7

Rec. Doc. No. 194.
Rec. Doc. No. 261.

Document Number: 41143 
Page 2 of 2