City of Seattle v. Monsanto Company et al
Filing
78
ORDER granting Defendants' 73 Motion to Stay Briefing on Plaintiff's Motion to Dismiss, by Judge Robert S. Lasnik. (SWT)
1
THE HONORABLE ROBERT S. LASNIK
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
8
9
CITY OF SEATTLE,
10
Plaintiff,
11
v.
12
Case No. C16-107-RSL
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’
MOTION TO STAY BRIEFING ON
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO DISMISS
MONSANTO COMPANY, et al.,
13
Defendants.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
THIS MATTER comes before the Court upon Defendants’ Motion to Stay Briefing
on Plaintiff’s Motion to Dismiss. Dkt. # 73. The Court has specifically reviewed the
following:
1.
Defendants’ Motion to Stay Briefing on Plaintiff’s Motion to Dismiss to Stay
Briefing on Plaintiff’s Motion to Dismiss;
2.
Plaintiff’s opposition; and
3.
Defendants’ reply.
Being fully advised and having reviewed the above, the Court concludes that it is in the
interest of judicial economy to stay further briefing of Plaintiff’s Motion to Dismiss, and
consideration of the motion itself, pending resolution of Defendants’ Motion to Amend
Answer and Counterclaims, Dkt. # 76. If Defendants’ Motion to Amend is ultimately
1
denied, the Court will re-note Plaintiff’s Motion to Dismiss to allow Plaintiff an opportunity
2
to file a reply brief. If Defendants’ Motion to Amend is ultimately granted, Plaintiff may
3
decide whether to file a revised motion to dismiss.
4
5
6
Accordingly, Defendants’ Motion to Stay Briefing on Plaintiff’s Motion to Dismiss
(Dkt. # 73) is GRANTED.
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Dated this 24th day of May, 2017.
A
Robert S. Lasnik
United States District Judge
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?