Powers, et al v. Credit Management Services, Inc. et al

Filing 164

ORDER- This action is stayed pending resolution of the defendants' appeal. The parties' motions for summary judgment [72 and 108 , partial summary judgment 116 and 130 , and defendants' objection 146 are denied as moot, without prejudice to reassertion upon resolution of the appeal. ( Status Report due by 2/26/2014.),Ordered by Judge Joseph F. Bataillon. (MKR)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
LAURA POWERS, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated; NICHOLE
PALMER, and JASON PALMER,

8:11CV436

Plaintiffs,
ORDER
vs.
CREDIT MANAGEMENT SERVICES,
INC., DANA K. FRIES, TESSA
HERMANSON, JESSICA L. V.
PISKORSKI, BRADY W. KEITH, MICHAEL
J. MORLEDGE,
Defendants.

This matter is before the court on its own motion. The Eighth Circuit Court of
Appeals (“Eighth Circuit”) has permitted an appeal of the court’s order granting class
action certification. See Filing No. 155. Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(f), an appeal does not
stay proceedings in the district court unless the district judge or the court of appeals so
orders. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(f). The court is advised that at a scheduling conference
before Magistrate Judge Thalken on July 31, 2013, the parties agreed that the action
should be stayed until the Eighth Circuit rules on the defendants' interlocutory appeal.
See Filing No. 154 (text order).
Several motions are presently pending:

defendants Keith’s and Morledge’s

motion for summary judgment, Filing No. 72, defendant Credit Management Services’
motion for summary judgment, Filing No. 108, plaintiffs’ motions for partial summary
judgment, Filing Nos. 116 and 130, and defendants’ objection to certain evidence, Filing
No. 146. For docket control purposes, those motions will be denied as moot pending
resolution of the appeal, without prejudice to reassertion. After the appeal is resolved,

the parties may reassert the motions by filing a pleading so stating. The parties need
not refile the motions, supporting evidence, or briefs. Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1.

This action is stayed pending resolution of the defendants’ appeal.

2.

The parties’ motions for summary judgment (Filing Nos. 72 and 108),

partial summary judgment (Filing Nos. 116 and 130), and defendants’ objection (Filing
No. 146) are denied as moot, without prejudice to reassertion upon resolution of the
appeal.
DATED this 27th day of August, 2013.
BY THE COURT:
s/ Joseph F. Bataillon
United States District Judge

2