Cottrell v. Duke et al
ORDER denying 78 Motion for Entry of Scheduling Order. Signed by Honorable Susan O. Hickey on September 26, 2014. (mll)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
IN RE WAL-MART STORES, INC.
This Document Relates to:
Master Docket No. 4:12-cv-4041
Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Motion for Entry of Initial Scheduling Order Under Local
Rule 16.1. ECF No. 78. Defendants have responded to the motion. ECF No. 85. The Court
finds that the motion is ripe for the Court’s consideration.
Plaintiffs move the Court to enter an initial scheduling order in this action setting forth
the dates when Defendants shall file their answer or motion to dismiss, the date by which the
parties must hold their Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f) conference, the date by which the parties must
submit their Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f) report, a tentative date for a Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b) conference,
and a proposed trial date. After Plaintiffs filed the present motion, Defendants filed a Motion to
Dismiss for Failure to Establish Demand Futility. ECF No. 109.
Upon consideration, the Court finds that the entry of a scheduling order in this case
would be premature, because the Court has not yet ruled on the critical threshold issue of
demand futility. 1 Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ Motion for Entry of a Scheduling Order (ECF No. 78)
IT IS SO ORDERED, this 26th day of September, 2014.
/s/ Susan O. Hickey
Susan O. Hickey
United States District Judge
If the Court does not excuse Plaintiffs’ failure to make a pre-suit demand, Plaintiffs have no standing to sue.
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?