Flora v. The Hain Celestial Group, Inc. et al

Filing 89

Minute Order for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Steven I. Locke:Motion Hearing held on 1/11/2018. Plaintiffs motion to lift the stay, DE 82 , is denied for the reasons set forth on the record. See Gruber v. Gilbertson, 16 CV 727, 2017 W L 3891701 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 5, 2017); Kuriakose v. Fed. Home Loan Mortg. Co., 674 F. Supp.2d 483 (S.D.N.Y. 2009); Westchester Putnam Heavy & Hwy Laborers Local 60, 08 Civ. 9528, 2009 WL 1285845 (S.D.N.Y. May 8, 2009). Plaintiffs have failed to establi sh the necessary undue prejudice required to lift the stay. In the Courts view, the fact that Defendants motion papers on their motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) may make certain statements attacking the viability of the Corrected Consolid ated Class Action Complaint (Complaint) by relying on statements outside the Complaint is irrelevant and fails to establish any prejudice whatsoever. The Court will address the motion to dismiss on the merits of the allegations set forth in the Complaint and nothing in the Defendants motion papers will prejudice Plaintiffs with respect to that analysis. So Ordered by Magistrate Judge Steven I. Locke on 1/11/2018. (Gandiosi, Kristin)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

CIVIL CONFERENCE
MINUTE ORDER

BEFORE: STEVEN I. LOCKE
U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE

DATE: 1/11/2018
TIME: 11:00 am

CASE: CV 16-4581(ADS) In Re The Hain Celestial Group, Inc. Securities Litigation
TYPE OF CONFERENCE: MOTION
APPEARANCES:
For Plaintiff:

FTR: 10:44-11:12

Seth Jessee
Michael Canty

For Defendant: Timothy Hoeffner
Jason Gerstein
THE FOLLOWING RULINGS WERE MADE:
☐
Scheduling Order entered.

☐

The court has adopted and So Ordered the joint proposed scheduling order [
submitted by the parties.

☐

The Joint Pretrial Order is accepted for filing and the action is deemed ready for trial.
The action will be tried in accordance with the discretion and the trial calendar of the
District Judge.

☒

Other: Plaintiffs’ motion to lift the stay, DE [82], is denied for the reasons set forth on the
record. See Gruber v. Gilbertson, 16 CV 727, 2017 WL 3891701 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 5,
2017); Kuriakose v. Fed. Home Loan Mortg. Co., 674 F. Supp.2d 483 (S.D.N.Y. 2009);
Westchester Putnam Heavy & Hwy Laborers Local 60, 08 Civ. 9528, 2009 WL 1285845
(S.D.N.Y. May 8, 2009). Plaintiffs have failed to establish the necessary “undue
prejudice” required to lift the stay. In the Court’s view, the fact that Defendants’ motion
papers on their motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) may make certain statements
attacking the viability of the Corrected Consolidated Class Action Complaint
(“Complaint”) by relying on statements outside the Complaint is irrelevant and fails to
establish any prejudice whatsoever. The Court will address the motion to dismiss on the
merits of the allegations set forth in the Complaint and nothing in the Defendants’ motion
papers will prejudice Plaintiffs with respect to that analysis.
SO ORDERED
/s/Steven I. Locke
STEVEN I. LOCKE
United States Magistrate Judge

]