Fulton v. Enclarity, Inc. et al

Filing 9

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
MATTHEW N. FULTON,
Case No. 16-13777
Plaintiff,
Honorable Denise Page Hood
v.
ENCLARITY, INC., et al.,
Defendants.
________________________________________/
ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE
MOTION TO CERTIFY CLASS
On October 24, 2016, Plaintiff filed the instant class action complaint against
various Defendants, along with a Motion to Certify the Class. Defendants have 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 and exhibits thereto, 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, Defendants have not been served. Defendants have
not filed a response to the Complaint, nor 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 Defendants have
been served and had the opportunity to respond to the Complaint and the class
allegations.

S/Denise Page Hood
Denise Page Hood
Chief Judge, United States District Court
Dated: November 8, 2016
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon counsel of
record on November 8, 2016, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

S/LaShawn R. Saulsberry
Case Manager