The County Commission of McDowell County v. McKesson Corporation et al

Filing 21

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: Pending before this court are plaintiff's 17 and 18 MOTIONS to Stay the deadline for responding to defendants' motions to dismiss and other pending case management deadlines. For the reasons set forth herei n, plaintiff's motions are GRANTED in part and DENIED in all other respects. Plaintiff has seven (7) days from entry of this order to respond to the pending motions to dismiss. Replies will be due in accordance with the local rules. Signed by Senior Judge David A. Faber on 2/17/2017. (cc: attys) (mk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
AT BLUEFIELD
MCDOWELL COUNTY,
Plaintiff,
v.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:17-00946

MCKESSON CORPORATION, et al.,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Pending before this court are plaintiff’s motions to stay
the deadline for responding to defendants’ motions to dismiss and
other pending case management deadlines.

(ECF Nos. 17 and 18).1

In those motions, plaintiff asks the court to essentially stay
all pending activity in the case until such time as plaintiff
files a motion to remand the case to state court and the court
rules on the as-of-yet unfiled motion.

Defendants

AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation and Cardinal Health, Inc.,
oppose plaintiff’s motions.

(ECF Nos. 19 and 20).

For the

following reasons, plaintiff’s motions are GRANTED in part and
DENIED in all other respects.
First, a motion to stay further activity in a case pending a
ruling on a motion to remand is typically only filed once such
motion to remand has been filed.

And, it is not the court’s

typical practice to grant such a stay unless a good reason for
1

The motions appear to be duplicates of one another except
that they were filed by different plaintiff’s counsel.

doing so exists.

In this case, the motion to remand has yet to

be filed and the court would, in effect, be placing the case on
hold for something that has not happened.

Second, plaintiff has

not demonstrated good cause for delaying a response to the
pending motions to dismiss.

Even if the case is remanded to

state court, the merits of the dismissal motions will still have
to be decided by that court.

Allowing the briefing to go forward

per ordinary practice in this court enhances defendants’ chances
of securing a speedy disposition in that court (or this court
should a motion to remand be denied).2

Finally, the parties’

obligations under the Order and Notice are not such that the
parties’ time and effort will be wasted even if this case is
remanded to state court.

Rather, such deadlines ensure that the

case keeps moving while the court is deciding the legal issues
raised by the parties.

For these reasons, a stay of this matter

is not warranted.
However, given that plaintiff’s original deadline for
responding to the motions to dismiss has already passed, the
court will grant a short continuance of those deadlines.3
Therefore, plaintiff has seven (7) days from entry of this order

2

If a motion to remand is filed in this case while the
motions to dismiss remain pending, the court will, as it should,
decide the remand motion first.
3

Unless exceptional circumstances exist, in the future, any
motion to continue should be filed well in advance of the
deadline to be extended.
2

to respond to the pending motions to dismiss.

Replies will be

due in accordance with the local rules.
The Clerk is directed to send copies of this Memorandum
Opinion and Order to all counsel of record.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 17th day of February, 2017.
ENTER:

David A. Faber
Senior United States District Judge

3