National Labor Relations Board v. Kellogg Company

Filing 70

ORDER. Signed by Judge Samuel H. Mays, Jr on 08/22/2014. (Mays, Samuel)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
WESTERN DIVISION

M.KATHLEEN McKINNEY, Regional
Director of Region 15 of the
National Labor Relations Board,
for and on behalf of the
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD,
Petitioner,
vs.
KELLOGG COMPANY,
Respondent.

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

No. 14-2272

ORDER

Before the Court is the August 19, 2014 Motion to Dissolve,
Modify, or Stay Section 10(j) Injunction Order (the “Motion”),
filed by Kellogg Company (“Respondent”).
No. 68.)

Respondent seeks expedited briefing and consideration.

(Id. at 17.)
Director,
Board

(Mot. Dissolv., ECF

for

On August 22, 2014, M. Kathleen McKinney, Regional
and

on

(“Petitioner”)

behalf

of

responded

expedited consideration.

the
to

National

Labor

Respondent’s

Relations

request

for

(Resp., ECF No. 69.)

Respondent asserts that it is filing a notice of appeal
that would become effective after the Court rules on the Motion
and

seeks

expedited

briefing

and

consideration

because

“it

presents the Court with the opportunity to consider the impact

of the ALJ’s decision on the merits before an appeal.”
Dissolv.,

ECF

No.

68

at

17.)

Petitioner

(Mot.

contends

that

Respondent has not shown a need for expedited briefing and that
Respondent’s right to appeal the July 30 injunction would not be
prejudiced by allowing Petitioner the normal time to respond to
the Motion.

(Resp., ECF No. 69.)

Petitioner’s

argument

is

well

taken.

As

noted

by

Respondent, its notice of appeal would become effective after
the

Court

rules

on

its

Motion.

Respondent

would

not

be

prejudiced by allowing Petitioner the normal time to respond to
the Motion.

Petitioner has 14 days to respond under Local Rule

7.2(a)(2).

Petitioner

has

until

and

including

September

2,

2014, to file her response.
Petitioner’s request that the filing date for her response
to the Motion remain Tuesday, September 2, 2014, is GRANTED.
Respondent’s request for expedited briefing and consideration is
DENIED to the extent that it seeks to shorten the time allowed
Petitioner to file a response to the Motion.

The Court will

consider all other aspects of the Motion, including the need for
expedited consideration, after hearing from Petitioner.

It is so ORDERED this 22d day of August, 2014.

s/ Samuel H. Mays, Jr.____ _
SAMUEL H. MAYS, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
2