Matches in SCALES for { <scales/DocketEntry/nmd;;1:16-cv-00296_de20> ?p ?o ?g. }
Showing items 1 to 7 of
7
with 100 items per page.
- nmd;;1:16-cv-00296_de20 RegisterActionDate "2016-01-26" @default.
- nmd;;1:16-cv-00296_de20 RegisterActionDescriptionText "ORDER STAYING CASE. On January 6, 2016, plaintiffs in a similar case against the same Defendants pending in the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico, Haskal, et al. v. Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Co., Inc., 1:15-cv-00163 (D.N.M.), filed a motion with the Judicial Panel for Multidistrict Litigation ("JPML") for Transfer of Actions to the District of New Mexico for Consolidation of all Pretrial Proceedings Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. sec. 1407. (See D.E. 27 .) Therein, the plaintiffs moved the JPML to consolidate five similar actions, including this one, for pretrial purposes before the District of New Mexico. On January 15, 2016, the Court issued an Order requiring the Parties to show cause why this case should not be stayed pending the JPML's decision. (D.E. 28 (citing Bonenfant v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., No. 07-60301-CIV, 2007 WL 2409980, at *1 (S.D. Fla. July 31, 2007) ("It is common practice for courts to stay an action pending a transfer decision by the JPML."). See also Manual for Complex Litig. sec. 22.35 (4th ed. 2004) ("Courts commonly stay such actions because '[a] stay pending the [JPML]'s decision can increase efficiency and consistency, particularly when the transferor court believes that a transfer order is likely and when the pending motions raise issues likely to be raised in other cases as well.'"). Defendants responded to the Show Cause Order on January 21, 2016 and do not oppose a stay. (D.E. 31 .) Plaintiffs Responded on January 25, 2016 and do oppose the stay. (D.E. 33 .) Upon review of the Responses and the record, the Court finds that a stay is proper. Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that this case is hereby STAYED AND ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSED pending a transfer decision by the JPML. All pending motions are DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE with leave to refile in the event the JPML denies consolidation and transfer of this action. The Court recognizes that Defendant has filed a 13 Motion to Dismiss and a 29 Motion for Leave to File and Amended Motion to Dismiss, which Plaintiff opposes. In the event that (1) the JPML denies consolidation and transfer, and (2) Defendant seeks to refile a motion to dismiss, it shall refile its original 13 Motion to Dismiss and may refile its Motion for Leave to Amend the Motion to Dismiss, giving Plaintiff an opportunity to oppose the filing of an Amended Motion to Dismiss. This entry constitutes the ENDORSED ORDER in its entirety. Signed by Judge Joan A. Lenard on 1/26/2016. (gie) NOTICE: If there are sealed documents in this case, they may be unsealed after 1 year or as directed by Court Order, unless they have been designated to be permanently sealed. See Local Rule 5.4 and Administrative Order 2014-69. [Transferred from Florida Southern on 4/14/2016.] (Entered: 01/26/2016)" @default.
- nmd;;1:16-cv-00296_de20 AdministrativeID "34" @default.
- nmd;;1:16-cv-00296_de20 hasReferenceToOtherEntry nmd;;1:16-cv-00296_de15 @default.
- nmd;;1:16-cv-00296_de20 hasReferenceToOtherEntry nmd;;1:16-cv-00296_de17 @default.
- nmd;;1:16-cv-00296_de20 hasReferenceToOtherEntry nmd;;1:16-cv-00296_de19 @default.
- nmd;;1:16-cv-00296_de20 hasReferenceToOtherEntry nmd;;1:16-cv-00296_de3 @default.