Carolina Material Handling Services, Inc. v. Employee-Services.net, Inc. et al

Filing 72

ORDER denying 70 Motion to Stay. Signed by Magistrate Judge David Keesler on 09/30/2014. (jlk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
CHARLOTTE DIVISION
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:14-CV-127-FDW-DCK
CAROLINA MATERIAL HANDLING
SERVICES, INC.; COLLINS & LACY, P.C.;
TOBUL ACCUMULATOR
INCORPORATED; GULBRANDSEN
CHEMICALS, INC.; GULBRANDSEN
PUERTO RICO, INC.; GULBRANDSEN
TECHNOLOGIES, INC.; and
GULBRANDSENS, LLC,
Plaintiffs,
v.
EMPLOYEE-SERVICES.NET, INC.;
eePAYROLLSERVICES, LLC; WILLIAM S.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

ORDER

STAZ; JAMES W. STAZ; TINA STAZ;
EMPLOYEE-EPS, LLC; NLSTAZ-EPS, LLC;
TMSTAZ-EPS, LLC; WPTASON-EPS, LLC;
WILLIAM J. STAZ; TIMOTHY J. STAZ;
NANCY L. STAZ; and WENDY P. STAZ,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Defendants.
)
)
THIS MATTER IS BEFORE THE COURT on “Plaintiffs’ Consent Motion For Stay”

(Document No. 70) filed September 29, 2014. This motion has been referred to the undersigned
Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), and immediate review is appropriate. Having
carefully considered the motion and the record, and in consultation with Judge Whitney’s
chambers, the undersigned will deny the motion, without prejudice to re-file at a later date.
Apparently, Plaintiffs seek a stay of this action in anticipation of a ruling by the United
States Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of North Carolina on or about October 16,
2014, related to this case and/or other pending actions. (Document No. 70, p.2). Under the
circumstances, the Court will decline to issue a stay at this time; however, Plaintiffs may renew
this motion following a decision by the bankruptcy court on the pending motions to stay in that
action. The undersigned notes that the “Case Management Order” “preauthorizes the parties to
stipulate to the taking of discovery beyond the discovery completion deadline provided that any
such extension expires not later than fourteen (14) calendar days prior to the scheduled trial term
and a joint stipulation memorializing the extension is filed on the record.” (Document No. 11,
p.2).
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that “Plaintiffs’ Consent Motion For Stay”
(Document No. 70) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
Signed: September 30, 2014

2

3