Opinion
1:04-CV-2205 (FJS/AK)
03-12-2013
CHRISTINE MILLS, RUNAKO BALONDEMU, GERALDINE DUNCAN, PRISCILLA IJEOMAH, LAWRENCE PERRY, WILLIAM ROWLAND, DAVID HUBBARD, CLIFTON KNIGHT, SHARON TAYLOR, and CHARLES MWALIMU, Plaintiffs, v. JAMES HADLEY BILLINGTON, Librarian, Library of Congress, Defendants.
ROSE LEGAL ADVOCATES Attorneys for Plaintiffs OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY Attorneys for Defendant OF COUNSEL DAVID L. ROSE, ESQ. JOSHUA N. ROSE, ESQ. EARLENE W. ROSENBERG, ESQ. BEVERLY M. RUSSELL, AUSA JULIA DOUDS, AUSA
APPEARANCES
ROSE LEGAL ADVOCATES
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
OFFICE OF THE UNITED
STATES ATTORNEY
Attorneys for Defendant
OF COUNSEL
DAVID L. ROSE, ESQ.
JOSHUA N. ROSE, ESQ.
EARLENE W. ROSENBERG, ESQ.
BEVERLY M. RUSSELL, AUSA
JULIA DOUDS, AUSA
SCULLIN, Senior Judge
ORDER
Currently before the Court are Defendant's motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, for summary judgment, see Dkt. No. 172, and Defendant's motion to strike the declarations that Plaintiffs filed in support of their opposition to Defendant's motion to dismiss, see Dkt. No. 192.
The Court heard oral argument in support of, and in opposition to, these motions on March 5, 2013. Consistent with the Court's discussion with counsel at the conclusion of oral argument, the following constitutes the Court's written resolution of these motions. Accordingly, the Court hereby
ORDERS that Defendant's motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, for summary judgment is DENIED insofar as that motion is based on failure to exhaust administrative remedies; and the Court further
ORDERS that Defendant's motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, for summary judgment is DENIED insofar as that motion is based on the doctrine of res judicata; and the Court further
ORDERS that Defendant's motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, for summary judgment is DENIED without prejudice and with leave to renew insofar as that motion is based on the doctrine of collateral estoppel. Defendant may renew its motion to dismiss and/or for summary judgment on this ground, if appropriate, in opposition to Plaintiff's motion for class certification; and the Court further
ORDERS that Defendant's motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, for summary judgment is DENIED without prejudice and with leave to renew insofar as that motion is based on failure to state a claim. Defendant may renew its motion to dismiss and/or for summary judgment on this ground, if appropriate, in opposition to Plaintiffs' motion for class certification; and the Court further
ORDERS that Defendant's motion for sanctions, which seeks relief in the form of the dismissal of Plaintiffs' class claims, see Dkt. No. 120, and Defendant's motion for leave to file a supplemental memorandum in support of that motion, see Dkt. No. 191, are DENIED; and the Court further
ORDERS that the pending discovery disputes regarding class discovery, including but not limited to Defendant's motion for a protective order, see Dkt. No. 207, Plaintiffs' motion for clarification of Magistrate Judge Kay's May 28, 2010 Order, see Dkt. No. 211, and Defendant's motion to strike the declarations that Plaintiffs filed in support of their opposition to Defendant's motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, for summary judgment, see Dkt. No. 192, are referred to Magistrate Judge Kay for resolution; and the Court further
ORDERS that, within ten days of the date on which Magistrate Judge Kay resolves the outstanding class discovery issues, the parties shall complete said discovery; and the Court further
ORDERS that, within forty days of the date on which Magistrate Judge Kay resolves the outstanding class discovery issues, Plaintiffs shall file their motion for class certification; and the Court further
ORDERS that Defendant shall file its opposition to Plaintiffs' motion for class certification within fourteen days of the date on which Plaintiffs file their motion for class certification; and the Court further
ORDERS that the parties shall not file any further papers either in support of or in opposition to Plaintiffs' motion for class certification.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 12, 2013
Syracuse, New York
_________________
Frederick J. Scullin, Jr.
Senior United States District Court Judge