Taylor et al v. Acxiom Corporation et al

Filing 38

ORDER denying without prejudice 7 Motion to Dismiss, denying without prejudice 15 Motion for Default Judgment, denying without prejudice 19 Motion to Dismiss, denying without prejudice 26 Motion to Dismiss, denying without prejudice 28 Motion to Stay . Signed by Judge T. John Ward on 9/25/07. (ch, )

Taylor et al v. Acxiom Corporation et al

Doc. 38

Case 2:07-cv-00001-TJW

Document 38

Filed 09/25/2007

Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION SHARON TAYLOR, ET AL., Plaintiffs, v. ACXIOM CORP., ET AL., Defendants. § § § § § CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:07-CV-01 (TJW) § § § § § ORDER Before the court are the following motions and their related briefing: Joint Motion of Defendants Reed Elsevier Inc., Seisint, Inc. and ChoicePoint Entities to Dismiss First Amended Complaint or, Alternatively, to Stay Plaintiffs' Action, with Request for Oral Argument (Dkt. #7); and Motion of Defendant ChexSystems, Inc. to Dismiss Complaint or, Alternatively, to Stay Plaintiffs' Action as to ChexSystems, Inc., with Request for Oral Argument and Incorporated Supporting Memorandum (Dkt. #26) (collectively, the "Motions"). In the Motions, the defendants ask this court to dismiss, or in the alternative, stay this action in light of the parallel litigation pending in the District Court for the Southern District of Florida, Fresco, et al. v. Automotive Directions, Inc., et al., Case No. 03-cv-61063-JEM (the "Fresco litigation"). On May 16, 2007, in the Supplemental Brief in Support of Amended Joint Motion of Defendants Reed Elsevier, Inc., Seisint, Inc. And Choicepoint entities to Dismiss First Amended Complaint or, Alternatively, to Stay Plaintiffs' Action (Dkt. #35) ("Defendants' Supp. Brief"), this court was notified that a nationwide class had been certified for purposes of a proposed settlement in the Fresco litigation. In his order, the Hon. Judge Martinez issued an injunction, under 28 U.S.C.

Dockets.Justia.com

Case 2:07-cv-00001-TJW

Document 38

Filed 09/25/2007

Page 2 of 2

§ 1651 and Fed. R. Civ. P. 23, temporarily enjoining the settlement class members from continuing or taking action in any judicial proceedings against the released parties with respect to the claims covered by the proposed settlement. Ex. A to Defendants' Supp. Brief at 17. The plaintiffs "agree that a stay of proceedings in this case would be appropriate." Plaintiffs' Reply to Resp. in Further Support of Motion to Dismiss or Alternatively to Stay Action (Dkt. #37) at 2. Therefore, it is hereby ORDERED that the Motions are GRANTED with respect to a STAY in this action. It is further ORDERED that the plaintiffs shall promptly advise the court of any activity in the Fresco litigation that impacts this case. It is further ORDERED that Plaintiffs' Motion for Default Judgment or, Alternatively Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (Dkt. #15) is DENIED. The defendants' obligation to answer is stayed pending further order of the court. It is further ORDERED that the balance of the pending motions to dismiss or stay (Dkt. #7, #19, #26, and #28) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to re-urging should the stay be lifted in the future.

SIGNED this 25th day of September, 2007.

__________________________________________ T. JOHN WARD UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2