13-50 RIVER ROAD CORP v. ANSAM COMMERCIAL KITCHEN AND VENTILATIONS SPECIALISTS, INC.
Filing
10
OPINION AND ORDER denying 4 Motion to Certify Class. Signed by Judge John Michael Vazquez on 6/16/16. (sr, )
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
13-50 RIVER ROAD CORP., d/b/si EMPRESS
DINER,
Plaintiff,
Civil Action No. 16-710-JMV-JBC
OPINION & ORDER
ANSAM COMMERCIAL KITCHEN AND
VENTILATION SPECIALISTS, INC.,
Defendant.
John Michael Vazquez, U.S.D.J,
THIS MATTER comes before the Court by way of the unopposed Motion for Class
Certification filed by Plaintiff 13-50 River Road Corp., d/b/a Empress Diner. D.E. 4. The Court
read Plaintiff's submission and considered the motion without oral argument pursuant to L. Civ.
R. 78.1(b).
For the reasons set forth below, the Court will deny Plaintiffs motion without
prejudice.
Plaintiff "filed this motion contemporaneously with its Class Action Complaint," and asks
the Court to certify a class that is not yet ascertained and whose factual and legal claims are
currently without support. D.E. 4^1. Indeed, Plaintiff acknowledges that "additional discovery
is necessary for the court to determine whether to certify the class Plaintiff seeks to represent." Id.
As a result, the Court concludes that Plaintiffs motion is premature.
A movant for class
certification must affirmatively demonstrate compliance with each requirement of Fed. R. Civ. P.
23. Marcus v. BMW of N. Am., LLC, 687 F.3d 583, 591 (3d Cir. 2012) ("The party seeking
certification bears the burden of establishing each element of Rule 23 by a preponderance of the
evidence."). Further, when evaluating a motion for class certification a court "is obligated to probe
behind the pleadings when necessary and conduct a 'rigorous analysis' in order to determine
whether the Rule 23 certification requirements are satisfied." Byrd v. Aaron s //ic., 784 F.3d 154,
163 (3d Cir. 2015) (quoting Comcast Corp. v. Behrend, 133 S. Ct. 1426, 1432 (2013)). It is clear
that there is insufficient evidence for Plaintiff to satisfy its burden under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 or for
the Court to conduct an appropriate analysis to determine whether a class should be certified.
Consequently, Plaintiffs motion for class certification is denied without prejudice to be renewed
following class discovery.
For these reasons and for good cause shown,
IT IS on the 16th day of June, 2016,
ORDERED that Plaintiffs Motion for Class Certification (D.E. 4) is DENIED
WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?