Olson v. M.G.M. Wine & Spirits, Inc.
Filing
30
ORDER STAYING CASE(Written Opinion). Signed by Senior Judge David S. Doty on 10/16/2012. (PJM)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Civil No. 11-1949(DSD/SER)
Kristine Olson on behalf of
herself and all others
similarly situated,
Plaintiff,
ORDER
v.
FTL Corporation d/b/a MGM
Liquor and ATM Network,
Defendants.
This matter is before the court sua sponte. Currently pending
in the instant action is the motion for class certification by
plaintiff Kristine Olson and the motion to dismiss for lack of
subject-matter jurisdiction by defendant ATM Network, Inc. (ATM
Network).
In its motion to dismiss, ATM Network argues that Olson
has suffered no injury in fact,1 and therefore does not have
standing to bring her claim under the Electronic Funds Transfer
Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1693 et seq.
before the Eighth Circuit.
This question is currently pending
See Charvat v. First Nat’l Bank of
Wahoo, No. 8:12-cv-97 (D. Neb. July 12, 2012), appeal docketed, No.
12-2797 (8th Cir. July 27, 2012).
Because
the
outcome
in
Charvat
may
control
the
court’s
decision here, all proceedings in this matter are stayed pending
1
In the complaint, Olson sought both actual and statutory
damages. Am. Compl. 7. Olson has since abandoned her claim of
actual damages. Pl.’s Mem. Supp. 2 n.1.
the ruling in Charvat.
In light of the stay, the pending motions
are dismissed without prejudice.
Accordingly, based on the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1.
All further proceedings in this matter are stayed pending
the Eighth Circuit’s decision in Charvat v. First National Bank of
Wahoo, No. 12-2797 (8th Cir. appeal docketed July 27, 2012).
2.
Plaintiff’s Motion for Class Certification [ECF No. 11]
is denied without prejudice.
3.
Defendant ATM Network, Inc.’s Motion to Dismiss for Lack
of Subject Matter Jurisdiction [ECF No. 40] is denied without
prejudice.
Dated:
October 16, 2012
s/David S. Doty
David S. Doty, Judge
United States District Court
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?