Stooksbury v. Ross et al

Filing 1054

ORDER finding as moot 1006 Motion to Stay; finding as moot 1007 Motion to Stay; finding as moot 1008 Motion to Expedite. Signed by Magistrate Judge H Bruce Guyton on 10/04/2013. (KMK, )

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE ROBERT T. STOOKSBURY, JR., Plaintiff, v. MICHAEL L. ROSS, et al., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. 3:09-CV-498 (VARLAN/GUYTON) MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This case is before the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Rules of this Court, and Standing Order 13-02. Now before the Court is a Limited Intervening Petition [Doc. 1006], Motion for Limited Stay [Doc. 1007], and Motion for Expedited Ruling [Doc. 1008], filed by RPM Assets, LLC, and Mitchell E. Jones (the “Movants”). In these filings, the Movants request that the Court stay all legal proceedings against receivership assets until the summary proceeding issue is resolved and that the Court rule on the pending request for summary proceedings in an expedited manner. [See Doc. 1006, 1007, 1008]. On September 12, 2013, the Court entered a Memorandum Opinion and Order ruling upon the summary proceeding issue and directing that “all legal proceedings against receivership assets are stayed until the conclusion of Stooksbury II, unless otherwise ordered by the Court.” [Doc. 1035 at 24]. The Court finds that this ruling rendered the filings before the Court moot, and accordingly, they [Docs. 1006, 1007, and 1008] are DENIED AS MOOT. IT IS SO ORDERED. ENTER: s/ H. Bruce Guyton United States Magistrate Judge 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?