UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SACRAMENTO DIVISION
August 8, 2012
PAUL ANTHONY RUPE, PLAINTIFF,
M. CATE, SECRETARY OF CORRECTIONS, ET. AL.,
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Edward F. Shea Senior United States District Judge
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS JACKSON, MARTINEZ, WILLIAMS' MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME AND SETTING BRIEFING SCHEDULE ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION
Pending before the Court are Plaintiff Paul Anthony Rupe's Motion for Class Certification, ECF No. 115, and Motion for Judgment on Class Certification Pleadings without Opposition, ECF No. 125, and Defendants L. Jackson, L. Martinez, and D.J. Williams' Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to Second Amended Complaint, ECF No. 124. Defendants' motion seeks an extension of time August 15, 2012, to respond to the Second Amended Complaint, ECF No. 101. Mr. Rupe's first motion seeks certification of a plaintiff class pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, and his second motion seeks to have his motion for class certification summarily granted because Defendants failed to timely respond to it.
Mr. Rupe filed the Second Amended Complaint in this matter on December 14, 2011. On January 26, 2012, after screening Mr. Rupe's Second Amended Complaint, the Court directed Mr. Rupe to prepare and return the necessary service documents within forty-five days, which he did. ECF Nos. 103 & 104. On April 12, 2012, the Court directed service of the Second Amended Complaint and set a telephonic scheduling conference, which is set for August 28, 2012. ECF Nos. 107 & 126.
Having reviewed Defendants Martinez, Jackson, and Williams' filing and the record in this matter, the Court finds good cause to grant these Defendants' motion and extends their deadline for answering the Second Amended Complaint to August 15, 2012. Because three Defendants have not yet answered the Second Amended Complaint, the Defendants in this matter will not be held to the class-certification response deadlines in the Clerk of Court's Notice of Local Rule 230(l), ECF No. 118. Instead, Defendants must respond to Mr. Rupe's motion for class certification within twenty-one (21) days of the deadline for the three above-mentioned Defendants to answer the Complaint: September 5, 2012. Mr. Rupe's reply, if any, shall be filed within seven (7) days of the date that Defendants' response is served.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 1. Defendants L. Jackson, L. Martinez, and D.J. Williams' Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to Second Amended Complaint, ECF No. 124, is GRANTED. These Defendants shall file and serve their answer to the Second Amended Complaint no later than August 15, 2012.
2. Mr. Rupe's Motion for Judgment on Class Certification Pleadings without Opposition, ECF No. 125, is DENIED. The parties shall brief Mr. Rupe's Motion for Class Certification, ECF No. 115, as set forth above.
IT IS SO ORDERED. The District Court Executive is directed to enter this Order and provide a copy to Mr. Rupe and defense counsel.
Edward F. Shea
© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.