Dumas v. Dr. Reddy's Laboratories, Ltd et al

Filing 23

ORDER granting 22 Motion to Stay. Signed by Magistrate Judge David S. Cayer on 3/1/2011. (tmg)

Download PDF
-DSC Dooms v. Dr. Reddy's Laboratories, Ltd et al Doc. 23 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA CHARLOTTE DIVISION Gloria Dooms, et al Plaintiff, vs. Dr. Reddy's Laboratories, Ltd., et al Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) CASE NO.: 3:10-cv-00420-RLV-DSC ) ) ) ) ) ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO STAY This matter came to be heard on Plaintiff Gloria Dooms' Motion to Stay, pending the outcome of proceedings in the United States Supreme Court in the matters of Demahy v. Actavis, Inc., 593 F. 3d 428 (5th Cir. 2010) certiorari granted as Actavis, Inc. v. Demahy, No. 09-1501; and Mensing v. Wyeth, Inc., 588 F.3d 603 (8th Cir. 2009), certiorari granted as Pliva, Inc. v. Mensing, No. 09-993 and Actavis Elizabeth, LLC v. Mensing, No. 09-1039 (the "Consolidated Cases"). Upon consideration of the Motion, and for good cause shown, it is HEREBY ORDERED: 1. This matter is stayed for all purposes, pending the outcome of the Consolidated Cases; 2. The Court's Rule 26 Scheduling Order (Document 17) is vacated, and the trial date for this matter is continued to a date to be determined; 3. Deadlines for all pre-trial proceedings, including discovery and required disclosures, are stayed and will be rescheduled, if necessary, commensurate with a new trial date; 4. Deadlines for responding to any pending discovery requests, including requests for admission, interrogatories, and requests for production, are stayed until further proceedings, consistent with this Order; 5. Plaintiff shall notify the Court within 30 days of a decision by the United States Supreme Court in the Consolidated Cases, with notice to Defendant. Dockets.Justia.com SO ORDERED. Signed: March 1, 2011

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?