Wooten v. Emergency Medical Services Corporation et al

Filing 71

ORDER ON MOTION FOR EXPEDITED PROCEEDINGS. Plaintiff's 24 Motion for (1) Expedited Injunction Proceedings and (2) Request for Expedited Ruling is denied. The 50 Motion to Join the EMS Opposition to the Request for Expedited Proceedings is granted. By Judge Walker D. Miller on 7/11/11.(mnf, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Senior Judge Walker D. Miller
Civil Action No. 11-cv-00412-WDM-MEH
MICHAEL WOOTEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff,
v.
EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES CORPORATION,
CLAYTON, DUBILIER & RICE, LLC,
GOLDMAN SACHS & CO.,
MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER & SMITH INC.,
ONEX CORPORATION,
WILLIAM A. SANGER,
ROBERT M. LEBLANC,
STEVEN B. EPSTEIN,
PAUL B. IANNINI,
JAMES T. KELLY,
MICHAEL L. SMITH,
KEVIN E. BENSON, and
LEONARD RIGGS, JR.,
Defendants.

ORDER ON MOTION FOR EXPEDITED PROCEEDINGS
Miller, J.
This matter is before me on the Motion for Expedited Injunction Proceedings and
Request for Expedited Ruling, filed March 30, 2011 (ECF No. 24), by plaintiff Michael
Wooten. The Emergency Medical Services Corporation defendants1 filed a response (ECF
No. 49), and defendant Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. has moved to join in that

1

The EMS defendants include defendants Emergency Medical Services
Corporation, Williams A. Sanger, Robert M. Leblanc, Steven B. Epstein, Paul B. Iannini,
James T. Kelly, Michael L. Smith, Kevin E. Benson, and Leonard Riggs, Jr.

response (ECF No. 50).2 Defendants Clayton, Dubilier & Rice, LLC, and Goldman Sachs
& Co. have also filed responses opposing the motion to expedite (ECF Nos. 51, 52).
In his motion, Wooten requests that I grant an expedited briefing and hearing
schedule, and that I expedite my ruling, for a motion for preliminary injunction that has yet
to be filed. Wooten’s motion states that he “intends” to file such a motion and asks that I
expedite proceedings on the “forthcoming” motion. Because no motion for preliminary
injunction has ever been filed, there is nothing to expedite.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED:
1.

Plaintiff’s Motion for (1) Expedited Injunction Proceedings and (2) Request for
Expedited Ruling, filed March 30, 2011 (ECF No. 24), is denied.

2.

The Motion to Join the EMS Opposition to the Request for Expedited Proceedings,
filed April 20, 2011 (ECF No. 50), is granted.
DATED at Denver, Colorado, on July 11, 2011.
BY THE COURT:

s/ Walker D. Miller
United States District Judge

2

Merrill Lynch’s filing is titled as a motion to join the EMS response (“Motion
Joining EMS Defendants’ Opposition to Plaintiff’s Request for Expedited Proceedings”),
but nowhere in the body of the document does Merrill Lynch request leave of court to do
so. Nevertheless, I will treat the filing as a motion.
PDF FINAL

2