Cottrell v. Duke et al

Filing 118

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
TEXARKANA DIVISION
____________________________________
)
IN RE WAL-MART STORES, INC.
)
SHAREHOLDER DERIVATIVE
)
LITIGATION
)
____________________________________)
)
This Document Relates to:
)
ALL ACTIONS
)
____________________________________)

Master Docket No. 4:12-cv-4041

ORDER
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)
is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED, this 26th day of September, 2014.
/s/ Susan O. Hickey
Susan O. Hickey
United States District Judge
1

If the Court does not excuse Plaintiffs’ failure to make a pre-suit demand, Plaintiffs have no standing to sue.