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)
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?