Ronaldo Designer Jewelry, Inc. v. Cox et al
SCHEDULING ORDER. Signed by District Judge Debra M. Brown on 2/22/17. (rel)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
RONALDO DESIGNER JEWELRY, INC.
JAMES B. COX, and
CATHERINE A. COX
d/b/a JC DESIGNS
d/b/a WIRE N RINGS and
JOHN DOE a/k/a LEROY and
JOHN DOES Numbers 1 through 99
On February 9, 2017, the Court issued an order (1) setting a schedule for discovery
regarding the preliminary issues of personal jurisdiction and venue raised by the defendants in
their motions to dismiss and (2) staying briefing on all other issues pending a ruling by the Court
on whether personal jurisdiction over the defendants exists and whether venue is proper.
On February 21, 2017, the Court, pursuant to notice, convened a telephonic conference
regarding the status of the personal jurisdiction and venue issues. During the conference, the
defendants advised that they now concede the issues of personal jurisdiction and venue and,
accordingly, wish to drop the portions of their pending motions to dismiss challenging personal
jurisdiction and venue.
In light of the defendants’ concession, the Court and the parties
discussed the refiling of the motions to dismiss to allow the defendants to indicate their
concessions on the record, the schedule for briefing on the defendants’ refiled motions to
dismiss, the schedule for the completion of briefing on the plaintiff’s renewed motion for a
temporary restraining order, and optional hearing dates.
Based on such discussion, it is
The stay of briefing on all issues other than personal jurisdiction and venue raised
by pleading and/or motion is lifted.
By February 23, 2017, the defendants may refile their motions to dismiss1 without
the portions challenging personal jurisdiction and venue. Any response by the plaintiff shall be
filed within fourteen (14) days of the refiling of the motions to dismiss. Any reply by the
defendants shall be filed within seven (7) days of the filing of the plaintiff’s response.
By March 9, 2017, the plaintiff may file a reply in support of its renewed motion
for a temporary restraining order.2
An evidentiary hearing on the plaintiff’s renewed motion for a temporary
restraining order3 will be set by separate notice for April 12, 2017. A hearing (oral argument) on
the defendants’ motions to dismiss, if the Court deems one necessary, will be set by separate
SO ORDERED, this 22nd day of February, 2017.
/s/ Debra M. Brown
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
As discussed during the status conference, since the defendants’ pending motions to dismiss and supporting
memoranda are identical, the defendants may file one motion to dismiss with a single supporting memorandum on
behalf of both defendants.
By text order entered February 10, 2017, the Court granted the plaintiff’s motion for an extension to file its reply
until March 24, 2017 (then the same deadline for the plaintiff’s response to the motions to dismiss) based on the
plaintiff’s statement that many of the arguments in its reply will be the same as those it will make in its response to
the defendants’ motions to dismiss. Because the March 24, 2017, deadline was based on a schedule and
circumstances that no longer exist, the reply deadline of March 9 governs.
As also discussed during the status conference, the hearing on the renewed motion for a temporary restraining
order will be converted to a preliminary injunction hearing.
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?