Custom Blending and Packaging of St. Louis, LLC v. Steven Moser, Jr. et al
ORDER regarding status of case and lifting stay. See Order for details. Signed by Chief Judge David R. Herndon on 4/20/12. (klh, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
CUSTOM BLENDING AND
PACKAGING OF ST. LOUIS, LLC,
STEVEN MOSER, JR., et al.,
HERNDON, Chief Judge:
This matter comes before the Court for case management. On June 29, 2011,
the Court stayed this matter pending defendant Litz’s Chapter 7 bankruptcy
proceedings, cancelled the July 22, 2011 show cause hearing as to the DAC defendants,
including Litz, and directed the parties to notify the Court in writing when the
bankruptcy proceedings were completed (Doc. 125). As the Court had not received an
update on the status of the bankruptcy proceedings, the Court directed Litz to inform
the Court in writing the status of the bankruptcy proceedings on April 5, 2012 (Doc.
On April 19, 2012, Litz filed his response indicating that his bankruptcy
proceedings were resolved on October 31, 2011 (Doc. 128).1 Thus, the Court LIFTS
the stay and DIRECTS the DAC defendants and plaintiff to inform the Court in writing
As noted above the bankruptcy proceedings were discharged on October 31, 2011.
However, the parties did not inform the Court of this until the Court directed them to do so again
on April 5, 2012 despite being directed to do so on June 29, 2011. This begs the question why
was the Court’s directive not followed. When the Court directs counsel to take some action, the
Court fully expects counsel to so act.
on or before May 4, 2012 the status of this case; in particular the status of the pending
motion to show cause why DAC defendants should not be held in civil contempt (Doc.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Signed this 20th day of April, 2012.
Digitally signed by
David R. Herndon
United States District Court
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?