Richardson v. Anhueser-Busch Companies, LLC
Filing
34
MINUTE ORDER denying without prejudice 13 Plaintiff's Motion to Stay Proceedings Pending Resolution of the Motion to Transfer and Consolidate Currently Pending Before the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation [JPML]. Motion hearing set for 5/30/2013 is vacated. Scheduling Conference reset for 6/5/2013 at 9:45 AM in Courtroom A 501 before Magistrate Judge Michael E. Hegarty. By Magistrate Judge Michael E. Hegarty on 5/23/2013. (mehcd)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 13-cv-00506-RM-MEH
JOEL RICHARDSON, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff,
v.
ANHEUSER-BUSCH COMPANIES, LLC,
Defendant.
MINUTE ORDER
Entered by Michael E. Hegarty, United States Magistrate Judge, on May 23, 2013.
Plaintiff’s Motion to Stay Proceedings Pending Resolution of the Motion to Transfer and
Consolidate Currently Pending Before the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation [“JPML”] [filed
March 28, 2013; docket #13] is denied without prejudice as follows. Plaintiff seeks a stay of
proceedings pending a ruling on Plaintiff’s motion to transfer and consolidate this action for
multidistrict litigation. Both parties anticipate a ruling on the motion to transfer at a hearing
scheduled before the JPML for May 30, 2013. Defendant opposes the present motion1 to the extent
that a stay of proceedings will delay adjudication of Defendant’s motion to dismiss; however, the
motion to dismiss will not become ripe in this case until a reply brief is filed, which is currently due
May 30, 2013.2 The Plaintiff does not dispute that he seeks a stay of the adjudication of the motion
to dismiss pending the JPML’s ruling.3 Because there is no need for a stay before the motion to
dismiss becomes ripe on May 30, 2013 and because the parties anticipate a ruling on the motion to
transfer on May 30, 2013, the Court finds the present motion is premature. In the event that the
JPML does not issue a ruling on the motion to transfer on May 30, 2013, the Plaintiff may re-file
his motion after that time.
Consistent with this order, the oral argument requested by Defendant and currently scheduled
for May 30, 2013 is vacated. The Scheduling Conference currently set for May 30, 2013 is vacated
and rescheduled for June 5, 2013, at 9:45 a.m. in Courtroom A-501, on the fifth floor of the Alfred
A. Arraj United States Courthouse located at 901 19th Street, Denver, Colorado. If this date is not
convenient, counsel should confer with opposing counsel and contact my Chambers to obtain an
1
Contrary to Plaintiff’s assertion, Defendant’s opposition was timely filed pursuant to Fed.
R. Civ. P. 6(d), D.C. Colo. LCivR 7.1C and this Court’s Electronic Case Filing Procedures.
2
See citations in n. 1 for a proper briefing schedule.
3
While the Plaintiff mentions his desire for a stay of the briefing on the motion to dismiss,
he filed a response to the motion on May 13, 2013. See docket #29.
alternate date. Absent exceptional circumstances, no request for rescheduling will be entertained
unless made five business days prior to the date of the conference.
In the event the JPML grants the motion to transfer on or before June 5, 2013, the Plaintiff
shall file a motion seeking to vacate the scheduling conference.
Lawyers whose offices are located outside of the Denver metropolitan area may appear at
scheduling conferences by telephone. Please contact Chambers at (303) 844-4507 at least five
business days prior to the scheduling conference to arrange appearance by telephone. Lawyers
appearing by telephone must ensure that the proposed Scheduling Order is filed electronically and
by email no later than five business days prior to the scheduling conference, in accordance with the
instructions in this minute order.
Any out-of-state counsel shall comply with D.C. Colo. LCivR 83.3C prior to the Scheduling
Conference.
The parties are further advised that they shall not assume that the Court will grant the relief
requested in any motion. Failure to appear at a Court-ordered conference or to comply with a Courtordered deadline which has not be vacated by Court order may result in the imposition of sanctions.
Finally, the parties or counsel attending the Conference should be prepared to informally
discuss the case to determine whether an early neutral evaluation is appropriate. There is no
requirement to submit confidential position statements/letters to the Court at the Scheduling
Conference or to have parties present who have full authority to negotiate all terms and demands
presented by the case.
Please remember that anyone seeking entry into the Alfred A. Arraj United States
Courthouse will be required to show a valid photo identification. See D.C. Colo. LCivR 83.2B.
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?