Huffman v. Patriot Coal Corp. et al
Filing
31
OPINION AND ORDER granting plaintiff's 28 MOTION to Stay Proceedings Pending Ruling on Plaintiff's Motion to Remand with the exception as more fully set forth herein; the deadlines in the case are stayed pending resolution of the plaintif f's motion to remand; to the extent plaintiff's 27 MOTION to Stay seeks to delay a ruling on the motion to dismiss Winchester LLC, Clyde McComas, and Mark E. George, it is denied; to the extent plaintiffs first motion to stay seeks extended time to file service, the motion remains under consideration by the court. Signed by Judge John T. Copenhaver, Jr. on 10/10/2014. (cc: attys; any unrepresented party) (tmh)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
AT CHARLESTON
HEATH HUFFMAN,
Plaintiff,
v.
Civil Action No. 2:14-15598
PATRIOT COAL CORP., a Missouri Corporation
licensed to do business in, and
doing business in West Virginia, and
WINCHESTER LLC, a West Virginia Corporation, and
REMINGTON, LLC, a West Virginia Corporation, and
CLYDE MCCOMAS and
MARK E. GEORGE, in their individual capacity,
Defendants.
OPINION AND ORDER
Pending before the court are plaintiff’s motions to stay,
the first filed October 6, 2014 and the second filed October 9,
2014. (ECF-27), (ECF-28).
Plaintiff’s first motion asks the court to delay ruling
upon the defendants’ motion, filed September 24, 2014, seeking
the dismissal of defendants Winchester LLC, Clyde McComas, and
Mark E. George because they were not properly served with
process, see (ECF-25).
The plaintiff’s first motion to stay
also asks the court to extend the time to serve those
defendants.
Plaintiff’s second motion to stay asks the court to stay
all proceedings and deadlines until the court rules on
plaintiff’s motion to remand, (ECF-7), filed May 8, 2014, which
is currently under consideration by the court.
The defendants
do not oppose this requested stay, except to the extent it would
prevent a ruling on the motion to dismiss defendants Winchester
LLC, Clyde McComas, and Mark E. George.
Def. Resp. in Opp’n to
Mot. to Stay, (ECF-29).
As the parties are in agreement and good cause has been
shown, the court determines that it is proper to grant the stay
requested in plaintiff’s second motion, staying all deadlines in
this case while the motion to remand is pending, with one
exception.
Litigation shall proceed on the issues raised in the
defendants’ motion to dismiss Winchester LLC, Clyde McComas, and
Mark E. George.
The defendants may file a reply to plaintiff’s
response on the schedule provided for in the local rules of
civil procedure.
See LR. Civ. P. 7.1(a)(7).
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that plaintiff’s second
motion to stay, (ECF-28), is, with the reservation noted,
granted, and as outlined above, the deadlines in this case are
hereby stayed pending resolution of the plaintiff’s motion to
remand.
It is further ORDERED that, to the extent plaintiff’s
first motion to stay, (ECF-27), seeks to delay a ruling on the
motion to dismiss Winchester LLC, Clyde McComas, and Mark E.
George, it is denied.
To the extent plaintiff’s first motion to
stay seeks extended time to file service, the motion remains
under consideration by the court.
ENTER:
October 10, 2014
John T. Copenhaver, Jr.
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?