Stender et al v. Archstone-Smith Operating Trust

Filing 159

ORDER ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSING CASE pursuant to D.C.COLO.LCivR 41.2 and Denying as moot 147 Plaintiff's Motion for Court Appointed Arbitraitor. by Judge William J. Martinez on 5/18/2011. (erv, )

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Judge William J. Martínez Civil Action No. 07-cv-02503-WJM-MJW STEVEN A. STENDER, and INFINITY CLARK STREET OPERATING, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. JAMES A. CARDWELL, et al., Defendants. ORDER DENYING AS MOOT MOTION FOR COURT APPOINTED ARBITRATOR AND ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSING CASE On May 12, 2010, the Court granted Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Arbitration and ordered the parties to arbitrate the individual shareholders’ claims. (ECF No. 114.) On March 18, 2011, after nearly a year of being unable to agree on an arbitrator, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Court Appointed Arbitrator (ECF No. 147) asking the Court to intervene in the process and choose an arbitrator for the parties. The Motion for Court Appointed Arbitrator is currently before the Court for ruling. On May 16, 2011, the parties filed a Joint Status Report stating that they had “agreed to jointly retain former United States District Court Judge Bruce W. Kauffman to serve as the neutral arbitrator in the arbitration ordered by Judge Robert E. Blackburn in his May 12, 2010 Order.” (ECF No. 158.) Because the parties have agreed on an arbitrator, the Court DENIES the Motion for Court Appointed Arbitrator as MOOT. Additionally, the Court HEREBY ORDERS that this case is ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSED pursuant to D.C.COLO.LCivR 41.2. The parties are GRANTED leave to move to reopen the case upon a showing of good cause once arbitration is complete. Dated this 18th day of May, 2011. BY THE COURT: William J. Martínez United 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?