The opinion of the court was delivered by: The Honorable David O. Carter, Judge
Julie Barrera Not Present Courtroom Clerk Court Reporter
ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR PLAINTIFFS: ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR DEFENDANTS:
NONE PRESENT NONE PRESENT
PROCEEDING (IN CHAMBERS): ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THIS COURT SHOULD NOT DENY AS MOOT PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION 
Before the Court is a Motion to Certify Class filed by Plaintiffs Maxine Derry and Russell Hemen ("Plaintiffs") on August 25, 2011. (Dkt. 37).
On August 3, 2011, the Court took under submission Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. 24), which was filed on July 8, 2011. See Dkt. 34. The Court then granted Defendant's Motion to Dismiss on October 5, 2011, and gave Plaintiffs until October 24, 2011, to amend. Dkt. 63.
Because the Court dismissed Plaintiff's Complaint and the briefing for Plaintiffs' Motion to Certify Class is based on allegations in that dismissed Complaint, Plaintiff's Motion appears to be moot. See Burke v. United States, 480 F.2d 279, 281, 480 F.2d 279 (9th. Cir. 1973) ("The request for a class action becomes moot when the merits are determined against the [plaintiff]."); Kirchgessner v. Wilentz, 884 F.Supp. 901, 918, 884 F.Supp. 901, 918 (D.N.J. 1995) (denying as moot motion for class certification because plaintiff's claims were dismissed).
Accordingly, the Court ORDERS Plaintiffs TO SHOW CAUSE in writing on or before October 31, 2011, why their Motion should not be denied as moot. Plaintiff's withdrawal of their Motion will also be deemed a sufficient response to this order to show cause.
Defendants may submit a response on or before November 2, 2011.
The Clerk shall serve a copy of this minute order on counsel for all parties in this action.
© 1992-2011 VersusLaw ...