Domtar AI Inc. et al v. J. D. Irving, Ltd. et al

Filing 68

ORDER GRANTING 64 Joint Motion for Extension of Time, and DENYING AS MOOT 65 Joint Motion to Stay. Defendants have until October 20, 2014, to file their reply brief related to 52 Motion for Sanctions. Plaintiffs have until October 27, 2014, t o file their opposition to the 57 Second Motion for Sanctions. To clear up any confusion, the Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly for the reasons given in the August 20, 2014 order at 55 . Signed by US District Judge Terrence W. Boyle on 9/27/2014. (Fisher, M.)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA WESTERN DIVISION No. 5:14-CV-58-BO DOMTAR AI INC. and its affiliate, AS SOCIA TED HYGENIC PRODUCTS LLC, Plaintiffs, v. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ORDER J.D. IRVING, LTD., IRVING PERSONAL ) CARE, LTD., and JAMES DEFELICE, ) Defendants. ) This cause comes before the Court on the parties' joint motions for extension oftime and to stay. [DE 64, 65]. Parties advise that they are engaging in mediation on October 6, 2014, and request extensions to the briefing deadlines associated with the two pending motions for sanctions in the case [DE 52, 57]. For good cause shown, the Court GRANTS the motion for an extension of time of deadlines [DE 64]. Defendants have until October 20, 2014 to file their reply brief related to the first motion for sanctions [DE 52]. Plaintiffs have until October 27, 2014 to file their opposition to the second motion for sanctions [DE 57]. The motion to stay [DE 65] is DENIED AS MOOT as the relief from briefing the sanctions motions has been relieved. The Court has also been made aware of some confusion concerning whether or not its order dated August 20, 2014 [DE 55] is a final and appealable order because it disposes of the case on the merits, but no judgment has yet issued. [DE 67]. After considering Ray Haluch Gravel Co. v. Cent. Pension Fund of the Int 'I Un. of Operating Engrs. and Participating Employees, 134 S. Ct. 773 (2014), and Carolina Power and Light Co. v. Dynegy Mktg. and Trade, 415 F.3d 354 (4th Cir. 2005), the Court finds that neither case applies in these exact circumstances, but that the Court should have issued its judgment on August 20, 2014 when it entered its order. In order to clarify the issue, the Court DIRECTS the Clerk to enter judgment accordingly for the reasons given in the August 20, 2014 order [DE 55]. The Court notes that its error was harmless as plaintiffs timely filed their notice of appeal based on the date of the Court's order and did not wait for judgment to be entered. SO ORDERED, this~ day of September, 2014. RRENCE W. BOYLE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDG 2

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?