Phipps et al v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

Filing 64

ORDER granting #62 Motion for Leave to File Reply. Signed by District Judge Aleta A. Trauger on 3/20/13. (DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(dt)

Motion GRANTED.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
NASHVILLE DIVISION
CHERYL PHIPPS, BOBBI MILLNER,
and SHAWN GIBBONS, On Behalf of
Themselves and all Others Similarly
Situated,
Plaintiffs,
v.
WAL-MART STORES, INC.
Defendant.

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

CLASS ACTION
CASE NO. 3:12-cv-01009
JUDGE TRAUGER
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE REPLY IN SUPPORT OF
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO CERTIFY FOR INTERLOCUTORY REVIEW AND
FOR STAY OF PROCEEDINGS PENDING INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL
Plaintiffs hereby seek leave to file the attached Reply in support of their Motion to
Certify for Interlocutory Review and for Stay of Proceedings Pending Interlocutory Appeal
[Doc. No. 57.].
Defendant’s Response to Plaintiffs’ Motion to Certify for Interlocutory Review devotes
several pages of analysis to the Sixth Circuit’s pending interlocutory review of the Northern
District of Ohio’s opinion in In re Vertue Marketing & Sales Practices Litigation, 712 F. Supp.
2d 703 (N.D. Ohio 2010), which Plaintiffs’ initial Memorandum addresses only briefly in one
footnote. [Compare Doc. No. 59, at 15-18, with Doc. No. 58, at 7 n.3.] Plaintiffs respectfully
request leave to file the short attached Reply to address the Sixth Circuit’s interlocutory review
of the Vertrue decision in greater detail.
Concerning the remaining arguments set forth in Defendant’s Response, Plaintiffs rest on
their Memorandum in support of their Motion [Doc. No. 58.], which itself echoes many of the

1