Matches in SCALES for { <scales/DocketEntry/ilnd;;1:20-cv-01263_de23> ?p ?o ?g. }
Showing items 1 to 5 of
5
with 100 items per page.
- ilnd;;1:20-cv-01263_de23 RegisterActionDate "2020-05-08" @default.
- ilnd;;1:20-cv-01263_de23 RegisterActionDescriptionText "MINUTE entry before the Honorable Andrea R. Wood: Plaintiff's motion for revised briefing schedule on emergency motion for remand 18 is denied. As an initial matter, Plaintiff is mistaken to suggest that this Court set an "emergency" briefing schedule and agreed to rule on Plaintiff's motion to remand 8 before the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ruled on Plaintiff's objection to the conditional transfer order. Rather, the Court set an efficient but still normal schedule -- allowing 22 days for a response and 8 days for a reply. In doing so, the Court took no position on whether the issues raised in the remand motion would be best decided here or by the district court managing the multidistrict litigation and instead expressed its belief that either federal court could appropriately decide those issues. Since the schedule for Plaintiff's motion was originally set, the public-health emergency associated with Covid-19 has disrupted practically all aspects of everyday life, including the work of judges and lawyers. In this District, the Chief Judge has addressed the extraordinary circumstances by issuing General Order 20-0012 and three subsequent amendments to that order, which extended all deadlines in civil cases first by 21 days, then by another 28 days, and then by 28 days more. As noted by Plaintiff, the combined result of these orders has been to extend the response date for Defendant until June 4, 2020. The Court understands Plaintiff's frustration with the extended schedule. However, the Court sees little prejudice to Plaintiff in allowing the modified schedule to stand. As this Court stated when the parties appeared before it in February, both this Court and the MDL judge in the District of Maryland are capable of deciding the issues raised by Plaintiff's motion. If the case is transferred to the District of Maryland before this Court rules, the MDL judge may enjoy the benefit of existing briefing. Accordingly, the Court confirms the following briefing schedule for Plaintiff's motion for remand 8 : Defendant shall respond by 6/4/2020 and Plaintiff shall reply by 6/12/2020. The parties are advised, however, that the Court will not be inclined to grant further extensions of the response date and would likely exempt this case from any additional extensions under future amendments to General Order 20-0012. Mailed notice. (dal, ) (Entered: 05/08/2020)" @default.
- ilnd;;1:20-cv-01263_de23 AdministrativeID "23" @default.
- ilnd;;1:20-cv-01263_de23 hasReferenceToOtherEntry ilnd;;1:20-cv-01263_de18 @default.
- ilnd;;1:20-cv-01263_de23 hasReferenceToOtherEntry ilnd;;1:20-cv-01263_de8 @default.