Catlin Specialty Insurance Company v. Jafrum International, Inc. et al

Filing 45

ORDER denying 44 Joint Motion for Extension of Temporary Stay of Proceedings. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties shall have up to and including March 18, 2016 to file dispositive motions. Signed by Magistrate Judge David Keesler on 2/17/16. (mga)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
CHARLOTTE DIVISION
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:14-CV-607-GCM-DCK
CATLIN SPECIALTY INSURANCE
COMPANY,

)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
JAFRUM INTERNATIONAL, INC.,
)
HELMET VENTURE, INC., and
)
TEGOL, INC.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
)
)
JAFRUM INTERNATIONAL, INC.,
)
)
Third-Party Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
SENTINEL INSURANCE COMPANY
)
and CHARLOTTE INSURANCE &
)
FINANCIAL GROUP, LLC,
)
)
Third-Party Defendants.
)
_______________________________________)

ORDER

THIS MATTER IS BEFORE THE COURT on the parties’ “Joint Motion For Extension
Of Temporary Stay Of Proceedings” (Document No. 44) filed February 16, 2016. 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, the
undersigned will deny the motion.
As an initial matter, the undersigned notes that the parties filed a “Joint Rule 26(f) Report”
(Document No. 30) on April 9, 2015. The parties reported that their dispute here is primarily legal
in nature and likely to be resolved by motions for judgment on the pleadings or for summary

judgment. (Document No. 30, p.1). On September 14, 2015, the undersigned ordered that the
parties may file their dispositive motions on or before October 16, 2015. (Document No. 37, p.7).
On October 7, 2015, the parties filed their first “Joint Motion For Temporary Stay Of
Proceedings” (Document No. 40). The undersigned observes that the pending motion is the
parties’ third request to stay these proceedings. See (Document Nos. 40, 42, and 44). In each of
the previous motions, the parties declared that a sixty (60) day stay would be sufficient. (Document
Nos. 40 and 42). Now the parties seek an indefinite extension of the “temporary stay” until
sometime after the conclusion of related actions in this Court and in the United States District
Court for the Central District of California. (Document No. 44, pp.2-4).
Finally, the undersigned observes that when the Court granted the parties’ previous request
to continue the stay of these proceedings, the parties were advised that “[f]urther requests to extend
time to stay these proceedings are unlikely to be allowed.” (Document No. 43, p.1).
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that the “Joint Motion For Extension Of Temporary
Stay Of Proceedings” (Document No. 44) is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties shall have up to and including March 18,
2016 to file dispositive motions.
SO ORDERED.
Signed: February 17, 2016