Pentiuk, Couvreur & Kobiljak, P.C. v. Advanced Roofing, Inc. d/b/a Advanced Roofing - Midwest

Filing 4

ORDER Denying Without Prejudice 2 Motion to Certify Class. Signed by District Judge Denise Page Hood. (SBur)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
PENTIUK, COUVREUR &
KOBILJAK, P.C.,
Case No. 16-12863
Plaintiff,
Honorable Denise Page Hood
v.
ADVANCED ROOFING, INC.
d/b/a ADVANCED ROOFING - MIDWEST
Defendant.
________________________________________/
ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE
MOTION TO CERTIFY CLASS
On August 4, 2016, Plaintiff filed the instant class action complaint against
Defendant, along with a Motion to Certify the Class. Defendant has yet to be served
and no scheduling order has yet been entered in this case.
Although Rule 23 of the Rules of Civil Procedure provides that a class
certification shall be decided as soon as practicable after the commencement of an
action, “this does not mandate precipitate action. The court should defer decision on
certification pending discovery if the existing record is inadequate for resolving the
relevant issues.” In re Am. Medical Sytems, et al., 75 F.3d 1069, 1086 (6th Cir. 1996).
Other than the Complaint, there is no record before the Court. The Supreme Court
requires district courts to conduct a “rigorous analysis” into whether the prerequisites

of Rule 23 are met before certifying a class. General Tel. Co. v. Falcon, 457 U.S.
147, 161 (1982). A class is not maintainable as a class action by virtue of its
designation as such in the pleadings. In re Am. Medical, 75 F.3d at 1079. A
defendant has due process rights in an action, including an opportunity to respond to
the complaint, to conduct any discovery on any of the named plaintiffs or submit a
brief to the district court regarding class certification issues. Id. at 1086.
In this case, as noted above, Defendant has not been served, has not filed a
response to the Complaint and has not had an opportunity to determine whether
discovery is required on the class certification issue. The Court at this time cannot
make the “rigorous analysis” required to determine whether Plaintiff meets class
certification requirements.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Certify Class (Doc. No. 2) is
DENIED without prejudice. Plaintiff may refile its motion after Defendant has been
served and has had the opportunity to respond to the Complaint and the class
allegations.

Dated: August 8, 2016

s/Denise Page Hood
HON. DENISE PAGE HOOD
CHIEF JUDGE, U.S. DISTRICT COURT

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon counsel of record on
August 8, 2016, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.
s/Shawna C. Burns
Case Manager