Osborne v. Menu Foods Inc

Filing 9

Osborne v. Menu Foods Inc

Doc. 9

Case 3:07-cv-00469-RNC

Document 9

Filed 05/09/2007

Page 1 of 4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT Lauri A. Osborne, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, vs. MENU FOODS, INC. Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. 3:07 CV 00469 (RNC) CLASS ACTION

PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTION TO MOTION TO STAY ALL PROCEEDINGS The plaintiff Laura A. Osborne individually on behalf of all similarly situated, hereby objects to the Motion to Stay All Proceedings brought by the defendant Menu Foods, Inc. on the following grounds: 1. There is a hearing scheduled for May 31, 2007 in Las Vegas, Nevada before the

Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation. There are Motions before the panel to transfer these cases involving tainted pet food to other jurisdictions including the State of Washington, California, and New Jersey. Nevertheless, the transfer to the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation is governed by Rule 1.5 which states, in pertinent part, that 28 USC §1407 "does not affect or suspend orders in pretrial proceedings in the District Court in which the action is pending and does not in any way limit the pre-trial jurisdiction of the Court." 2. Therefore, in Charles Ray Sims and Pamela Sims v. Menu Foods Income Fund, et

al, Civil No. 07-503 the United State District Court for the Western District of Arkansas denied a similar Motion to Stay. A copy of the Order on that motion is attached hereto as Exhibit "A." 3. Since this case is similarly governed by Rule 1.5 of the Rules of Procedure of the

Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, the defendant's Motion to Stay all pre-trial proceedings

Dockets.Justia.com

Case 3:07-cv-00469-RNC

Document 9

Filed 05/09/2007

Page 2 of 4

in this case should similarly be denied and discovery should proceed. 4. At the present time there is no Order to preserve evidence in this case and the

defendants have been in the process of trying to obtain information from putative class members and even enter into settlement agreements. Therefore, the defendant should not now be heard to argue that the legal proceedings should be stayed. Indeed, it may be over two months until a decisions is rendered on whether the matter will be certified as a Class and whether this matter will be transferred. Therefore, for all the foregoing reasons it is respectfully requested that the Motion to Stay All Proceedings be denied.

PLAINTIFF, LAURI A. OSBORNE By:_______________________ Bruce E. Newman NEWMAN, CREED & ASSOCIATES 99 North Street, Route 6 P.O. Box 575 Bristol, CT 06011-0575 [phone] Federal Bar No.: 12301

Case 3:07-cv-00469-RNC

Document 9

Filed 05/09/2007

Page 3 of 4

ORDER

The foregoing Objection to Motion to Stay All Proceedings having been duly heard by this Court, it is hereby ORDERED: SUSTAINED/OVERRULED

THE COURT

By Judge/Assistant Clerk

CERTIFICATION

I hereby certify that on the May 9, 2007, a copy of the foregoing document was filed electronically and served by mail on anyone unable to accept electronic filing. Notice of this filing will be sent by e-mail to all parties by operation of the court's electronic filing system or by mail to anyone unable to accept electronic filing as indicated on the Notice of Electronic Filing. Parties may access this filing through the court's CM/ECF System.

/s/ Bruce E. Newman ______________________ Bruce E. Newman

Case 3:07-cv-00469-RNC

Document 9

Filed 05/09/2007

Page 4 of 4