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