Opinion
Civil Action No. 06-cv-00686-WDM-BNB.
March 23, 2007
ORDER
This matter is before me on Plaintiffs' motion for class certification, filed August 15, 2006. In addition to this motion, there are currently three other motions currently pending in this action: (1) Defendants' motion to strike, filed September 12, 2006; (2) Defendants' motion to dismiss, filed the same day; and (3) Defendants' motion for leave to file a surreply brief, filed March 12, 2007.
Upon preliminary review of the motion to strike, motion to dismiss, and motion for class certification, and in consideration of the interests of judicial economy and the parties' interest in a ruling on certification "at an early practicable time," Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(c), I find that it is most appropriate to rule on the pending dispositive motions prior to ruling on class certification. See Wade v. Kirkland, 118 F.3d 667, 670 (9th Cir. 1997) (noting that "in some cases, it may be appropriate in the interest of judicial economy to resolve a . . . motion to dismiss prior to ruling on class certification.") ; Floyd v. Bowen, 833 F.2d 529, 534 (5th Cir. 1987) (holding that a "class action may be halted" by a motion to dismiss). Therefore, Plaintiffs' motion for class certification will be denied without prejudice to re-filing following a ruling on the pending motions to dismiss and to strike.
Finally, I note that upon re-filing, absent leave of the court, the opening and closing briefs should be no more than twenty pages in length, and the reply brief should be no more than ten. "Motions, responses, and replies shall be concise." D.C.Colo.LCivR 7.1(H).
Accordingly, it is ordered:
1. Plaintiffs' motion for class certification, filed August 15, 2006 (Docket No. 41), is denied without prejudice. 2. Plaintiffs' motion for leave to file a surreply brief, filed March 12, 2007 (Docket No. 122), is denied as moot.