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)

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