Barnes et al v. John M. O'Quinn & Associates, PLLC et al

Filing 44

ORDER Lifting Stay With Regard to Proceedings Related to Arbitration Issue. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jane M. Virden on 7/6/16. (ncb)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
GREENVILLE DIVISION
BOBBY BARNES, et al.,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiffs,
vs.
JOHN M. O’QUINN & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
D/B/A THE O’QUINN LAW FIRM, et al.,
Defendants.

Civil Action No. 4:16-cv-072-SA-JMV

ORDER LIFTING STAY WITH REGARD TO
PROCEEDINGS RELATED TO THE ARBITRATION ISSUE
Local Uniform Civil Rule 16(b)(3)(B) provides that “[f]iling a motion to compel
arbitration . . . stays the attorney conference and disclosure requirements and all discovery,
pending the court’s ruling on the motion, including any appeal.” Defendants John M. O’Quinn
& Associates, PLLC d/b/a The O’Quinn Law Firm, John M. O’Quinn & Associates, L.L.P., John
M. O’Quinn, P.C., John M. O’Quinn Law Firm PLLC (collectively the “O’Quinn Firm” or the
“O’Quinn Defendants”) and T. Gerald Treece, Independent Executor of the Estate of John M.
O’Quinn, Deceased (“Treece”) filed a Motion to Enforce the Arbitration Clause by Dismissing
the Action Pursuant to Rule 12; or, in the Alternative by Compelling Arbitration and Staying the
Case (“Motion to Enforce Arbitration”) on June 24, 2016. However, the Court had already
stayed the aforementioned proceedings pending a ruling on the personal jurisdiction issue. See
Order [27] dated June 24, 2016. The Court now finds that briefing of the arbitration issue should
be allowed to proceed as well and that responses and replies to the arbitration motion are due
within the time set by the Local Rules of this Court, except that those Defendants who have filed
motions to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction [26, 32] will not be required to file any

1

response to the arbitration motion until further order of the Court.1
SO ORDERED this, the 6th day of July, 2016.

/s/ Jane M . Virden
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

1

To be clear proceedings related to Defendant Gibson’s Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction [32], which was
filed after entry of the stay order, are not stayed, and responses to that motion are due within the time set by the
Local Rules.

2