Ali et al v. Trump et al

Filing 91

ORDER granting in part and denying in part Defendants' 86 motion for extension of time to respond to Plaintiffs' second amended complaint and second motion for class certification. Signed by Judge James L. Robart. (PM)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 8 9 10 JUWEIYA ABDIAZIZ ALI, et al., Plaintiffs, 11 v. 12 13 DONALD TRUMP, et al., ORDER ON DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR AN EXTENTION OF TIME AND LOCAL RULE 7(I) CONFERENCE Defendants. 14 15 16 CASE NO. C17-0135JLR I. INTRODUCTION Before the court is Defendants’ motion for an extension of time (MFE (Dkt. # 86)) 17 to file a response to Plaintiffs’ second amended complaint (SAC (Dkt. # 52)) and 18 Plaintiffs’ second motion for class certification (2d MFCC (Dkt. # 58)). Defendants 19 request these extensions until ten (10) days after the court resolves Defendants’ motion to 20 stay these proceedings entirely pending resolution of the appeal in Hawaii v. Trump, No. 21 17-15589 (9th Cir.). (See MFE at 1; see also MTS (Dkt. # 85).) The court has 22 considered the motion, Plaintiffs’ response (Resp. (Dkt. # 89)), the relevant portions of ORDER - 1 1 the record, and the applicable law. In addition, pursuant to Defendants’ request for a 2 Local Rule LCR 7(i) telephonic hearing, the court heard the argument of counsel on April 3 5, 2017. See Local Rules W.D. Wash. LCR 7(i); (Min. Entry (Dkt. # 90).) Being fully 4 advised, the court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part the motion as described below. 5 II. 6 ANALYSIS Defendants assert that the Ninth Circuit’s ruling in Hawaii v. Trump is likely to 7 provide substantial guidance to the court and parties in resolving the issues in this case. 8 (MFE at 2.) Defendants also assert that they need the requested extensions of time 9 because they 10 are still (1) consulting with their client agencies; (2) considering their responses to Plaintiffs’ numerous statutory and constitutional claims; (3) reviewing information concerning the named plaintiffs and proposed class members in order to evaluate the typicality and commonality of their claims, as well as their adequacy as class representatives; and (4) evaluating how Executive Order No. 13,780 affects the unwieldy proposed class. 11 12 13 (Id.) These proceedings, however, have been pending since January 30, 2017. (See 14 Compl. (Dkt. # 1).) Thus, Defendants have had substantial time to consult with their 15 client agencies and consider their responses to Plaintiffs’ claims. Although the court 16 agrees that there is a strong possibility that the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Hawaii v. 17 Trump will inform the parties’ positions and the court’s decision concerning class 18 certification, Defendants’ argument for an extension of time is considerably less 19 compelling with respect to the filing of an answer. Further, should Defendants conclude 20 that the Ninth Circuit’s ruling necessitates an amendment to their answer, the Federal 21 // 22 ORDER - 2 1 Rules of Civil Procedure provide that “[t]he court should freely give leave [to amend a 2 pleading] when justice so requires.” See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). 3 Accordingly, the court GRANTS Defendants’ motion for an extension of time 4 with respect to their response to Plaintiffs’ second motion for class certification. The 5 court ORDERS (1) Defendants to file their response to Plaintiffs’ second motion for class 6 certification within fourteen (14) days of the Ninth Circuit’s ruling in Hawaii v. Trump, 7 and (2) Plaintiffs to file their reply no later than seven (7) days after Defendants file their 8 response. 1 This extension will permit Defendants sufficient time to adjust their response 9 as may be necessary to be consistent with the Ninth Circuit’s ruling, but also ensure that 10 the class certification issue moves forward as expeditiously as possible. The court, 11 however, DENIES Defendants’ motion with respect to their response to Plaintiffs’ second 12 amended complaint and ORDERS Defendants to file that response no later than April 14, 13 2017. 2 14 // 15 // 16 // 17 18 19 20 21 22 1 Defendants asked the court to extend their response to the second motion for class certification until ten days after the court decides Defendants’ pending motion to stay the entire proceedings. (See MFE at 1; see also MTS.) However, in light of counsel’s argument at the hearing today, the court will extend the deadline until after the Ninth Circuit’s ruling in Hawaii v. Trump. The court will decide whether to stay other aspects of the litigation pending the Ninth Circuits’ decision at the time it resolves Defendants’ motion to stay. (See MTS.) 2 Plaintiffs’ counsel inquired at the hearing about the status of Defendants’ motion for a stay of the entire proceedings. (See MTS.) That motion is noted on the court’s calendar for April 14, 2017, and is not yet ripe. No party has asked the court for expedited review of that motion. (See generally Dkt.) Accordingly, the court will consider the motion to stay after it is fully briefed by the parties. ORDER - 3 1 2 III. CONCLUSION Based on the foregoing analysis, the court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part 3 Defendants’ motion for an extension of time to respond to Plaintiffs’ second amended 4 complaint and second motion for class certification (Dkt. # 86). 5 Dated this 5th day of April, 2017. 6 7 A 8 JAMES L. ROBART United States District Judge 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 ORDER - 4

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?