ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION AND VACATING HEARINGS

THELTON E. HENDERSON, District Judge.

On July 10, 2017, Defendant Lumber Liquidators Inc. filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' Fourth Amended Class Action Complaint. ECF No. 172. In this motion, Lumber Liquidators seeks to dismiss non-California plaintiffs under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(2) for lack of personal jurisdiction. Id. at 1:3-12. Currently before the Court is Lumber Liquidator's administrative motion to shorten time for consideration of its motion to dismiss. ECF No. 173. Specifically, Lumber Liquidator argues that because the issue of whether the Court has personal jurisdiction over non-California Plaintiffs is "inextricably intertwined with the issues the Court will address at the class certification and Daubert hearing," the Court should hear oral arguments on Lumber Liquidator's motion to dismiss at the July 31, 2017 hearing. Id. at 2. Plaintiffs timely opposed the administrative motion, arguing that the proposed shortening of time would prejudice them and the Court, and that the Court should only hear Plaintiffs' motion for class certification and Defendant's Daubert motion at the July 31, 2017 hearing because it is "undisputed" that the Court has personal jurisdiction over the California Plaintiffs. ECF No. 180.

After carefully considering the parties' arguments, the Court agrees with Plaintiffs that expediting the briefing and hearing schedule would prejudice Plaintiffs and the Court. Indeed, were the Court to accept Lumber Liquidator's proposed schedule, there would be insufficient time to adequately prepare for the July 31 hearing. Accordingly, Lumber Liquidator's administrative motion is untimely and therefore DENIED. The briefing schedule on Lumber Liquidator's motion to dismiss shall continue to be governed under Civ. L.R. 7.

Moreover, in light of the close proximity of Judge Henderson's retirement, and given the fact that the outcome of Lumber Liquidator's motion to dismiss could materially affect Plaintiffs' motion for class certification, the Court believes it would be improper to adjudicate the class certification motion before addressing the motion to dismiss. Accordingly, the July 31, 2017 hearing on Plaintiffs' motion for class certification and Defendant's Daubert motion and the August 14, 2017 hearing on Defendant's motion to dismiss are hereby VACATED. The parties are instructed to re-notice a hearing on their pending motions upon reassignment of this case to a new judge.

IT IS SO ORDERED.