Bartlett et al v. Frontier Gas Services LLC et al

Filing 27

ORDER staying the case until the issue of class certification in Ginardi has been decided; denying 13 Motion to Dismiss ; and directing the Clerk to administratively close this case. Plaintiffs may re-open their case by filing a motion to re-open after a ruling on class-certification in Ginardi. Signed by Judge Billy Roy Wilson on 3/5/12. (kpr)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
WESTERN DIVISION
GEORGE BARTLETT, et al.
v.

PLAINTIFFS
4:11-CV-00910-BRW

FRONTIER GAS SERVICES, LLC., et al.

DEFENDANTS

ORDER
Pending is Defendant Frontier Gas Services’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 13).
Plaintiffs have responded1 and Frontier has replied.2 For the following reasons, this case is
STAYED pending the class certification ruling in Case Number 4:11-cv-00420-BRW.3
Defendant argues this case should be dismissed under the first-filed rule “because it is the
same as a previously filed class action in Ginardi.”4 Plaintiffs contend that the first-filed rule
does not apply to cases pending before the same district court and suggests that I stay this case
“pending a ruling on class certification in Ginardi.”5
On February 17, 2012, I sent an e-mail to counsel asking whether there is any Eighth
Circuit case law on the issue of whether the “first filed” rule applies to cases pending before the
same district court. Based on the responses, it does not appear counsel were able to find any
Eighth Circuit case law directly on point. In their response to my e-mail, Defendant states that I

1

Doc. No. 21.

2

Doc. No. 22.

3

Peggy Ginardi, Ike Lester and Constance Lester, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated v. Frontier Gas Services, LLC., Kinder Morgan Treating, LP, Chesapeake
Energy Corporation, and Crestwood Arkansas Pipeline, LLC, Case Number 4:11-cv-00420BRW (E.D. Ark).
4

Doc. No. 14.

5

Doc. No. 21.
1

have “the discretion to dismiss [this case] or, in the alternative, as Plaintiffs urge, to stay [this
case] pending a ruling on class certification in the Ginardi case.”
At this time, I find that staying this case pending the class certification ruling in Ginardi
is appropriate. Therefore, Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 13) is DENIED without
prejudice. This case is STAYED until the issue of class certification in Ginardi has been
decided. This case is administratively closed, but Plaintiffs may re-open their case by filing a
motion to re-open after a ruling on class-certification in Ginardi.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 5th day of March, 2012.

/s/Billy Roy Wilson
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2