Filed: Mar. 05, 2012
Latest Update: Mar. 05, 2012
Summary: ORDER BILLY ROY WILSON, District Judge. Pending is Defendant Frontier Gas Services's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 13). Plaintiffs have responded 1 and Frontier has replied. 2 For the following reasons, this case is STAYED pending the class certification ruling in Case Number 4:11-cv-00420-BRW. 3 Defendant argues this case should be dismissed under the first-filed rule "because it is the same as a previously filed class action in Ginardi. " 4 Plaintiffs contend that the first-filed rule d
Summary: ORDER BILLY ROY WILSON, District Judge. Pending is Defendant Frontier Gas Services's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 13). Plaintiffs have responded 1 and Frontier has replied. 2 For the following reasons, this case is STAYED pending the class certification ruling in Case Number 4:11-cv-00420-BRW. 3 Defendant argues this case should be dismissed under the first-filed rule "because it is the same as a previously filed class action in Ginardi. " 4 Plaintiffs contend that the first-filed rule do..
More
ORDER
BILLY ROY WILSON, District Judge.
Pending is Defendant Frontier Gas Services's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 13). Plaintiffs have responded1 and Frontier has replied.2 For the following reasons, this case is STAYED pending the class certification ruling in Case Number 4:11-cv-00420-BRW.3
Defendant argues this case should be dismissed under the first-filed rule "because it is the same as a previously filed class action in Ginardi."4 Plaintiffs contend that the first-filed rule does not apply to cases pending before the same district court and suggests that I stay this case "pending a ruling on class certification in Ginardi."5
On February 17, 2012, I sent an e-mail to counsel asking whether there is any Eighth Circuit case law on the issue of whether the "first filed" rule applies to cases pending before the same district court. Based on the responses, it does not appear counsel were able to find any Eighth Circuit case law directly on point. In their response to my e-mail, Defendant states that I have "the discretion to dismiss [this case] or, in the alternative, as Plaintiffs urge, to stay [this case] pending a ruling on class certification in the Ginardi case."
At this time, I find that staying this case pending the class certification ruling in Ginardi is appropriate. Therefore, Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 13) is DENIED without prejudice. This case is STAYED until the issue of class certification in Ginardi has been decided. This case is administratively closed, but Plaintiffs may re-open their case by filing a motion to re-open after a ruling on class-certification in Ginardi.
IT IS SO ORDERED.