Advanced Reimbursement Solutions LLC v. Spring Excellence Surgical Hospital LLC et al
Filing
178
ORDER that the stay imposed on this case (Doc. 165 ) is lifted. FURTHER ORDERED that the response to the 149 Motion to Transfer Venue is due by December 21, 2018. The Reply is due within the time set by the Local Rules. FURTHER ORDERED that an Order setting a further Rule 16 conference before the undersigned will follow. Signed by Judge Dominic W Lanza on 12/7/2018. (MMO)
1
WO
2
3
4
5
6
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
8
9
Advanced Reimbursement Solutions LLC,
Plaintiff,
10
11
ORDER
v.
12
No. CV-17-01688-PHX-DWL
Spring Excellence Surgical Hospital LLC, et
al.,
13
14
Defendants.
15
On August 22, 2018, the Court issued an order staying this matter because one of
16
the parties, Defendant Joanna Davis (“Davis”), was involved in bankruptcy proceedings in
17
Texas. (Doc. 165.) It was the Court’s understanding, at the time this order was issued, that
18
the parties were in the process of seeking an order from the bankruptcy judge in Texas that
19
would authorize a lift of the stay. Id. Thus, the Court ordered the parties “to notify the
20
Court within ten days after the bankruptcy stay has been lifted so a conference call can be
21
scheduled to set new deadlines.” Id.
22
The parties have now filed a series of pleadings (Docs. 171, 172, and 176)
23
addressing recent developments in the Texas bankruptcy case. Unfortunately, those
24
pleadings reveal a factual disagreement about what has occurred. According to Plaintiff
25
Advanced Reimbursement Solutions LLC (“ARS”), the Texas bankruptcy judge
26
authorized a lift of the stay “for the limited purposes of: (a) allowing the parties to the
27
District Court Case to conduct discovery, including deposing the Debtor, and (b)
28
authorizing the District Court to rule on ARS’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment
1
currently pending in the District Court Case.” (Doc. 171-1 at 3.) Meanwhile, Defendant
2
Spring Excellence Surgical Hospital LLC (“SESH”) contends the Texas bankruptcy judge
3
only authorized a lift of the stay with respect to SESH’s pending motion (Doc. 149) to
4
transfer this case to Texas. (Doc. 172 at 4 [“[T]he SESH Orders authorize stay relief first
5
as to the venue transfer motion while expressly prohibiting discovery as to the Debtors.”].)
6
As the stay-related pleadings were being filed, there was another significant
7
development: ARS and Davis filed a stipulated motion to dismiss Davis as a defendant in
8
this case. (Doc. 173.) On November 19, 2018, the Court issued an order granting this
9
motion and dismissing as to Davis. (Doc. 175.)
10
The Court finds that, because Davis has now been dismissed as a party, there is no
11
need to resolve the parties’ dispute about the scope and nature of the recent order(s) issued
12
by the Texas bankruptcy court. The Court’s August 22, 2018 stay order was premised on
13
Davis’s status as a party. Because she’s no longer a party, the stay should be lifted in all
14
respects.
15
Accordingly,
16
IT IS ORDERED that the stay imposed on this case (Doc. 165) is lifted.
17
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the response to the Motion to Transfer Venue
18
(Doc. 149) is due by December 21, 2018. The Reply is due within the time set by the Local
19
Rules.
20
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that an Order setting a further Rule 16 conference
21
before the undersigned will follow.1
22
…
23
…
24
…
25
…
26
…
27
…
28
1
To the extent the parties seek to conduct this conference telephonically, that request is
denied.
-2-
1
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Court will not set a deadline for SESH to
2
file a response to the Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Doc. 97) until after hearing
3
from the parties, at the Rule 16 conference, concerning whether additional discovery and
4
depositions are needed for SESH to prepare its response.
5
Dated this 7th day of December, 2018.
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-3-
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?