13-50 RIVER ROAD CORP v. ANSAM COMMERCIAL KITCHEN AND VENTILATIONS SPECIALISTS, INC., No. 2:2016cv00710 - Document 10 (D.N.J. 2016)

Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER denying 4 Motion to Certify Class. Signed by Judge John Michael Vazquez on 6/16/16. (sr, )

Download PDF
13-50 RIVER ROAD CORP v. ANSAM COMMERCIAL KITCHEN AND VENTILATIONS SPECIALISTS, INC. Doc. 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY 13-50 RIVER ROAD CORP., d/b/si EMPRESS DINER, Plaintiff, Civil Action No. 16-710-JMV-JBC OPINION & ORDER ANSAM COMMERCIAL KITCHEN AND VENTILATION SPECIALISTS, INC., Defendant. John Michael Vazquez, U.S.D.J, THIS MATTER comes before the Court by way of the unopposed Motion for Class Certification filed by Plaintiff 13-50 River Road Corp., d/b/a Empress Diner. D.E. 4. The Court read Plaintiff's submission and considered the motion without oral argument pursuant to L. Civ. R. 78.1(b). For the reasons set forth below, the Court will deny Plaintiffs motion without prejudice. Plaintiff "filed this motion contemporaneously with its Class Action Complaint," and asks the Court to certify a class that is not yet ascertained and whose factual and legal claims are currently without support. D.E. 4^1. Indeed, Plaintiff acknowledges that "additional discovery is necessary for the court to determine whether to certify the class Plaintiff seeks to represent." Id. As a result, the Court concludes that Plaintiffs motion is premature. A movant for class certification must affirmatively demonstrate compliance with each requirement of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23. Marcus v. BMW of N. Am., LLC, 687 F.3d 583, 591 (3d Cir. 2012) ("The party seeking certification bears the burden of establishing each element of Rule 23 by a preponderance of the Dockets.Justia.com evidence."). Further, when evaluating a motion for class certification a court "is obligated to probe behind the pleadings when necessary and conduct a 'rigorous analysis' in order to determine whether the Rule 23 certification requirements are satisfied." Byrd v. Aaron s //ic., 784 F.3d 154, 163 (3d Cir. 2015) (quoting Comcast Corp. v. Behrend, 133 S. Ct. 1426, 1432 (2013)). It is clear that there is insufficient evidence for Plaintiff to satisfy its burden under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 or for the Court to conduct an appropriate analysis to determine whether a class should be certified. Consequently, Plaintiffs motion for class certification is denied without prejudice to be renewed following class discovery. For these reasons and for good cause shown, IT IS on the 16th day of June, 2016, ORDERED that Plaintiffs Motion for Class Certification (D.E. 4) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.