Watchit Technologies, Inc. v. Big Apple Consulting USA, Inc. et al
ORDER Consolidating Cases All further pleadings to be docketed to: 1:08cv51. Member Case: 1:09cv299, 1:09cv300 to be administratively closed. Signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis Howell on 08/31/2009. (thh)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT F O R THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA A S H E V IL L E DIVISION 1 :0 8 cv 5 1 W A T C H I T TECHNOLOGIES, INC., e t al., P la in t if fs , V s. B I G APPLE CONSULTING USA, I N C ., et al., D efen d an ts. _______________________________ B I G APPLE CONSULTING USA, I N C ., et al., P la in t if fs , V s. F R A N K A. MOODY, II, D efen d an t. ____________________________________ B I G APPLE CONSULTING USA, I N C ., et al., P la in t if fs , V s. W A T C H I T TECHNOLOGIES, INC., e t al., D efen d an ts. ____________________________________ ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
1 :0 8 cv 5 1
O R D E R OF C O N S O L ID A T IO N
1 :0 9 cv 2 9 9
1 :0 9 cv 3 0 0
T H I S MATTER is before the court upon the Order of Honorable Mary S. S c riv e n , United States District Judge for the Middle District of Florida, entered in C a s e No. 6:09-cv-00073- Orl-35GJK and Case No. 6:09-v-00074-Orl-35KRS on A u g u s t 3, 2009, transferring such cases to this district for consolidation with 1 :0 8 c v 5 1 . Upon transfer into this district, each Florida civil action was assigned a s e p a ra te case number and counsel advised this court of Judge Scriven's decision by w a y of Notice as required by Judge Scriven. It now appearing that both cases have been transferred into this district, such c a s e s will be consolidated with this action. As noted by Judge Scriven, there appears to be conflicting alignment of parties in the Florida actions and in the action p r ev io u s ly pending before this court. Further, it appears that there has been
s u b s ta n tia l delay in reaching the now pending and ripe Motion to Dismiss filed in the N o r th Carolina action.1 Thus, the court has four tasks: (1) realignment of the parties; (2 ) determining whether amendment of the pleadings is necessary in light of such re a lig n m e n t; (3) disposing of all pending motions, which may be mooted by a m e n d m e n t; and (4) a plan for the prompt resolution of this dispute. See Taylor v. A b a te, 1995 WL 362488, *2 (E.D.N.Y.1995) 2 ("Defendants' motion to dismiss is a d d res s e d solely to the original complaint···· Consequently, upon the filing of the a m e n d e d complaint, their motion is mooted and, therefore, denied."); In re Colonial
The court notes that Judge Scriven mooted all pending motions in the F lo rid a actions before transfer.
Due to the limits of ECF, copies of unpublished decisions cited in this O rd e r are incorporated into the court record through reference to the Westlaw c ita tio n .
Ltd. Partnership Litig., 854 F.Supp. 64, 80 (D.Conn.1994) (noting where "a plaintiff a m e n d s its complaint while a motion to dismiss is pending" the court may "deny[ ] the m o tio n as moot"); Rathke v. HCA Management Co., Inc., 1989 WL 161431, at *1 n. 1 (D.Kan.1989) (holding that "motion to dismiss ··· became moot when plaintiff filed a n amended complaint"); Gresham v. Waffle House, Inc., 586 F.Supp. 1442, 1444 n. 1 (N.D.Ga.1984) (same). T h e s e will be time consuming tasks in light of the procedural history of these c a s e s , and the court will require respective counsel to meet and use best efforts to re s o lv e as many of these issues as possible. Respective counsel, who may or may not p ra c tic e regularly in this district, are advised that the district court expects cases to be c lo s e d within one year of joinder of the issues. Unless resolved amicably, a status h e a rin g will be set 30 days hence at which time the court will address the above is s u e s .
ORDER IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that the above actions are
C O N S O L I D A T E D for all pretrial proceedings and trial under docket number 1 :0 8 c v 5 1 . I T IS FURTHER ORDERED that a Status Conference is CALENDARED fo r hearing on October 13, 2009, at 2 p.m.
Signed: August 31, 2009
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?