The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. et al v. Cooper

Filing 35

ORDER: Based upon the reasons provided in that opinion, the Court hereby GRANTS Plaintiff's Motion to Stay 13 , rendering Plaintiffs' Motion for Oral Argument 30 MOOT. The Clerk will terminate Defendant's Motion to Dismiss for Lac k of Jurisdiction 25 , but Defendant may file a notice renewing its Motion if the Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation declines the pending request for transfer. Finally, and as a housekeeping matter, Defendant's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction on Younger Abstention Grounds 9 is hereby DENIED AS MOOT in light of the filing of an Amended Complaint 12 . Signed by District Judge Kevin H. Sharp on 4/25/13. (DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(dt)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE NASHVILLE DIVISION THE McGRAW-HILL COMPANIES, INC. and STANDARD AND POOR’S FINANCIAL SERVICES, LLC, Plaintiffs, v. ROBERT E. COOPER, JR., in his official capacity as the ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF TENNESSEE, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. 3:13-00089 Judge Sharp ORDER This declaratory judgment action is related to a civil enforcement action brought by the State of Tennessee and removed to this Court. By Order and Memorandum in that case, State of Tennessee v. The McGraw Hill Companies, Inc., Case No. 3:13-00193 (M.D. Tenn. 2013), the Court has entered a stay and deferred ruling on the State of Tennessee’s Motion to Remand pending a decision by the Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation on whether that action and sixteen other similar actions pending across the country should be consolidated. The analysis set forth in that opinion applies with equal force in this case and is incorporated herein by reference. Based upon the reasons provided in that opinion, the Court hereby GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion to Stay (Docket No. 13), rendering Plaintiffs’ Motion for Oral Argument (Docket No. 30) MOOT. The Clerk will terminate Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction (Docket No. 25), but Defendant may file a notice renewing its Motion if the Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation declines the pending request for transfer. Finally, and as a housekeeping matter, Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss 1 for Lack of Jurisdiction on Younger Abstention Grounds (Docket No. 9) is hereby DENIED AS MOOT in light of the filing of an Amended Complaint (Docket No. 12). It is SO ORDERED. ____________________________________ KEVIN H. SHARP UNITED STATES DISTRICT 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?