Nebraska Investment Finance Authority v. Bayerische Landesbank Girozentrale

Filing 21

ORDER - 1. The Defendant's Motion for Enlargement of Time to Respond to Plaintiff's Motion to Enjoin (filing 20 ) is granted in part, and in part denied.2. The defendant's response to the plaintiff's motion to enjoin (fil ing 11 ) shall be filed on or before November 16, 2015.3. The plaintiff may respond in support of its motion to enjoin (filing 11 ) on or before November 27, 2015.4. The plaintiff's response to the defendant's motion to dismiss (filing 18 ) shall be filed on or before November 16, 2015.5. The defendant may respond in support of its motion to dismiss (filing 18 ) on or before November 27, 2015. Ordered by Judge John M. Gerrard. (JAB)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
NEBRASKA INVESTMENT
FINANCE AUTHORITY,

4:15-CV-3105

Plaintiff,
ORDER

vs.
BAYERISCHE LANDESBANK
GIROZENTRALE,
Defendant.

This matter is before the Court on the Defendant's Motion for
Enlargement of Time to Respond to Plaintiff's Motion to Enjoin (filing 20).
That motion will be granted in part and in part denied.
There are two other pending motions in this case: the plaintiff's motion
to enjoin the defendant from proceeding with a parallel action (filing 11), and
the defendant's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction (filing 18).
The defendant asks the Court to extend the deadline for it to respond to the
plaintiff's motion to enjoin until 14 days after the Court disposes of its motion
to dismiss.
The sole articulated basis for extending the defendant's response
deadline is that the motion to enjoin will be moot if the Court determines that
it lacks jurisdiction. Filing 20 at 2. Perhaps so, but that is not, in the Court's
view, a sufficient basis for excusing the defendant from responding at all. The
substance of the plaintiff's motion to enjoin and the defendant's motion to
dismiss appear to the Court, at first blush, to be potentially intertwined, and
the Court would prefer that both motions be fully briefed so that any
relationship between them can be fully understood.
That said, it is appropriate for the Court to resolve any jurisdictional
questions before considering whether an injunction is warranted. The Court
will, therefore, grant the defendant's motion in part, and afford it additional
time to respond to the plaintiff's motion to enjoin in order to synchronize the
briefing schedules on the motion to enjoin and motion to dismiss.

IT IS ORDERED:
1.

The Defendant's Motion for Enlargement of Time to
Respond to Plaintiff's Motion to Enjoin (filing 20) is granted
in part, and in part denied.

2.

The defendant's response to the plaintiff's motion to enjoin
(filing 11) shall be filed on or before November 16, 2015.

3.

The plaintiff may respond in support of its motion to enjoin
(filing 11) on or before November 27, 2015.

4.

The plaintiff's response to the defendant's motion to
dismiss (filing 18) shall be filed on or before November 16,
2015.

5.

The defendant may respond in support of its motion to
dismiss (filing 18) on or before November 27, 2015.

Dated this 23rd day of October, 2015.
BY THE COURT:

John M. Gerrard
United States District Judge

-2-