Wyers v. Cequent Perfoamance (sic) Products, Inc.

Filing 15

ORDER denying as moot 11 Cequent's Motion To Stay Discovery PendingResolution of its Rule 12(b)(1) Motion in a Related Case. By Judge Robert E. Blackburn on 9/23/2013.(klyon, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Robert E. Blackburn
Civil Action No. 13-cv-01735-REB
PHILIP W. WYERS, individually,
Plaintiff,
v.
CEQUENT PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, INC.,
Defendant.

ORDER
Blackburn, J.
The matter is before me on Cequent’s Motion To Stay Discovery Pending
Resolution of its Rule 12(b)(1) Motion in a Related Case [#11]1 filed August 29,
2013. I deny the motion as moot.
In the related case, 12-cv-02640-REB, the court entered its Order Granting
Motion To Amend Caption & Denying Motion To Dismiss [#60] on September 17,
2013. In that order Cequent’s Motion To Dismiss Under Rule 12(b)(1) [#23] filed
January 29, 2013, was denied. Thus, the subject motion to dismiss in the related case
has been resolved. Accordingly, the pendency of that motion may not serve as a basis
to stay discovery in this case.
THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that Cequent’s Motion To Stay Discovery

1

“[#11]” is an example of the convention I use to identify the docket number assigned to a specific
paper by the court’s electronic case filing and management system (CM/ECF). I use this convention
throughout this order.

Pending Resolution of its Rule 12(b)(1) Motion in a Related Case [#11] filed August
29, 2013, is DENIED as moot.
Dated September 23, 2013, at Denver, Colorado.
BY THE COURT:

2