Big Thyme Enterprises Inc v. David A Crotts & Associates Inc et al

Filing 11

ORDER STAYING MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION staying 4 MOTION to Certify Class sua sponte and notifying counsel that the motion may be refiled when the plaintiff wishes to proceed with class certification. Signed by Honorable Joseph F Anderson, Jr on 03/30/2012. (bshr, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
COLUMBIA DIVISION
Big Thyme Enterprises, Inc.,
individually and as the representative
of a class of similarly situated persons,
Plaintiff,
vs.
David A. Crotts & Associates, Inc.,
David A. Crotts, and John Does 1 - 10,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

C/A No.: 3:12-cv-00822-JFA

ORDER STAYING MOTION FOR
CLASS CERTIFICATION

The court, of its own accord, raises the matter of the plaintiff’s Motion to Certify
Class. (ECF No. 4). Plaintiff originally filed this action on November 10, 2011 in the
Court of Common Pleas for Richland County, South Carolina. On that same day, the
plaintiff filed its Motion for Class Certification. The motion was not accompanied by a
memordum at the time of filing, but the motion states that “[p]laintiff will file a
supporting Memorandum of Law in due course.” (ECF No. 4) On March 21, 2012,
Defendants David A. Crotts & Associates, Inc. and David A. Crotts (“Defendants”)
removed this case.
Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure prescribes the rules for class
actions and provides that “[a]t an early practicable time after a person sues or is sued as a
class representative, the court must determine by order whether to certify the action as a
class action.” In order to make a decision on whether to certify this action as a class
action, this court requires a memorandum of law. Because this action is in an early stage,
1

this court does not believe that it is practicable for the plaintiff to provide the court with a
memorandum of law at this time. As such, this court will stay the Motion for Class
Certification to be renewed by the plaintiff when it wishes to proceed with the motion.
Accordingly, this court hereby stays the plaintiff’s Motion for Class Certification,
sua sponte. The plaintiff may renew its motion for class certification by refiling its
Motion for Class Certification and a Memorandum in support of the motion.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

March 30, 2012
Columbia, South Carolina

Joseph F. Anderson, Jr.
United States District Judge

2