Lick Branch Unit, LLC et al v. Reed et al
Filing
19
ORDER holding in abeyance 9 Motion to Vacate; granting in part and denying in part 13 Motion to Maintain Status Quo. Signed by Magistrate Judge H Bruce Guyton on 06/21/2013. (KAW)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
AT KNOXVILLE
LICK BRANCH UNIT, LLC, and
FOREXCO, INC.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
JIM REED, CHARLES BRUCE REED, and
JAMES LUEKING,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No. 3:13-CV-203
(COLLIER/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 are Defendant Jim Reed’s Motion to Vacate
[Doc. 9] and Motion to Maintain Status Quo [Doc. 13].
A.
Motion to Vacate
On May 29, 2013, the Court entered a Memorandum and Order [Doc. 8], granting
Plaintiff’s Motion for Permission to Subpoena Third Parties [Doc. 5]. On May 30, 2013,
Defendant Jim Reed filed a Motion to Vacate [Doc. 9], which moved the Court to vacate the
Memorandum and Order entered the previous day.
In support of his request, Defendant Jim Reed notes that he had been served during the
period between the filing of the Plaintiffs’ Motion for Permission to Subpoena Third Parties and
the granting of the Motion for Permission to Subpoena Third Parties. Defendant Jim Reed
acknowledges that the Plaintiffs request leave to serve the subpoenas in order to determine
whether additional parties should be added to this action, but he maintains that the Court should
decide the jurisdictional challenge presented in his Motion to Dismiss [Doc. 12],1 prior to
allowing the Plaintiffs to serve subpoenas.
Plaintiffs respond by stating that they have not yet issued or served any subpoenas,
because Plaintiffs’ counsel agreed with Defendant Jim Reed’s counsel not to issue any
subpoenas until the Court rules on the Motion to Vacate. [Doc. 15 at 1]. Plaintiffs acknowledge
that Defendant Jim Reed has now been served. Nonetheless, Plaintiffs submit that the expedited
service of subpoenas to Griffin Oil and Plateau Electric is appropriate in light of the parties’ and
Court’s interest in expeditious discovery. [Id.]. Plaintiffs note that Defendant Jim Reed is not
required to respond to the subpoenas and will not incur costs through the service of the
subpoenas. [Id. at 2]. Plaintiffs move the Court to leave its previous Memorandum and Order in
place.
The Court has considered the parties’ positions along with the procedural posture of this
case and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Court finds that the issues presented to the
undersigned are best deferred until the Court has ruled on the challenge to subject matter
jurisdiction presented in the Motions to Dismiss. Accordingly, the Motion to Vacate [Doc. 9] is
HELD IN ABEYANCE.
If and when the District Judge determines that this Court has subject matter jurisdiction
over this case, the parties SHALL CONTACT the chambers of the undersigned within five (5)
days of entry of the District Judge’s Order to set a motion hearing and/or discovery conference.
The Plaintiffs SHALL REFRAIN from issuing third-party subpoenas until the Court issues a
ruling on the Motion to Vacate.
1
An additional Motion to Dismiss [Doc. 18], which also alleges a lack of subject matter jurisdiction, was filed by
Defendant James Lueking. Mr. Lueking was served on June 18, 2013, [Doc. 17].
2
B.
Motion to Maintain Status Quo
In his Motion to Maintain Status Quo, Defendant Jim Reed moves the Court to enter an
Order requiring the Plaintiffs to maintain the status quo ante in this case. In response, the
Plaintiffs state that they have not issued any subpoenas pending ruling upon the Motion to
Vacate, [Doc. 16 at 1].
The Motion to Maintain Status Quo [Doc. 13] is GRANTED IN PART, to the extent
stated above. To the extent the Motion sought any additional relief, it is DENIED IN PART.
C.
Conclusion
In sum, the Motion to Vacate [Doc. 9] is HELD IN ABEYANCE, pending ruling upon
the challenges to jurisdiction raised in Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss, and the Motion to
Maintain Status Quo [Doc. 13] is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
ENTER:
/s H. Bruce Guyton
United States Magistrate Judge
3
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?