Sims et al v. Menu Foods Income Fund et al

Filing 13

ORDER denying 7 Motion to Stay litigation. Signed by Judge Jimm Larry Hendren on May 2, 2007. (tg)

Download PDF
Sims et al v. Menu Foods Income Fund et al Doc. 13 Case 5:07-cv-05053-JLH Document 13 Filed 05/02/2007 Page 1 of 2 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT W E ST E RN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS F A YE T TE V IL L E DIVISION C H AR L ES RAY SIMS and PAMELA SIMS, I n di v id u al l y and on behalf of all o t he r s similarly situated v. M E NU M E NU M E NU M E NU MENU C i vi l No. 07-5053 P L AI N TI F FS FOODS INCOME FUND, FOODS MIDWEST CORPORATION, FOODS SOUTH DAKOTA INC., FOODS, INC., FOODS HOLDINGS, INC. ORDER D E FE N DA N TS N o w on this 2nd day of May, 2007, comes on for consideration d e fe n da n ts ' Motion To Stay, document #7, and from said motion, and the r e sp o ns e thereto, the Court finds and orders as follows: 1. Plaintiffs make claims of strict products liability, fraud, b r ea c h of warranty, and negligence, said to arise out of the sale by d e fe n da n ts of defective pet food. Plaintiffs seek to recover on their o w n behalf, and to represent a class of similarly situated plaintiffs. 2. D e fe n da n ts move the Court to stay the litigation, pending d e ci s io n s on three motions to transfer similar cases to Multi-District L i ti g at i on Panel courts and certify a class. They contend that a s t ay will "promote judicial economy and avoid undue prejudice to the p a rt i es . " Plaintiffs counter that little in the way of judicial resources w i ll be expended at this early stage of the case, and that they should n o t be prevented from commencing discovery. 3. T r an s fe r to the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation i s governed by 28 U.S.C. 1407, and by the Rules of Procedure of the Case 5:07-cv-05053-JLH Document 13 Filed 05/02/2007 Page 2 of 2 J u di c ia l Panel on Multidistrict Litigation. p r ov i de s that Rule 1.5 of those rules [t]he pendency of a motion, order to show cause, c o nd i ti o na l transfer order or conditional remand order b e fo r e the Panel concerning transfer or remand of an cation p u rs u an t to 28 U.S.C. 1407 does not affect or suspend o r de r s and pretrial proceedings in the district court in w h ic h the action is pending and does not in any way limit t h e pretrial jurisdiction of that court. A transfer or r e ma n d pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1407 shall be effective when t h e transfer or remand order is filed in the office of the c l er k of the district court of the transferee district. T h e wisdom of this rule is self-evident: when a motion for t r an s fe r is made, there is no way of knowing whether it will be g r an t ed or not. If a case were to be automatically stayed until the d e ci s io n regarding transfer were made, many cases which do not end up b e in g transferred would be needlessly delayed. So it is in this case: there is no way of knowing whether it w i ll be transferred to the MDL panel. While valid arguments are made o n both sides of the issue, the Court is persuaded that the best c o ur s e of action is to abide by the wisdom of Rule 1.5, and the motion w i ll , therefore, be denied. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that defendants' Motion To Stay ( d oc u me n t #7) is denied. I T IS SO ORDERED. /s/ Jimm Larry Hendren JIMM LARRY HENDREN U N IT E D STATES DISTRICT JUDGE -2-

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?