RORTY v. MONITRONICS INTERNATIONAL, INC., 2:16-cv-06542-ODW (PLA). (2016)
Court: District Court, C.D. California
Number: infdco20161003705
Visitors: 8
Filed: Sep. 30, 2016
Latest Update: Sep. 30, 2016
Summary: ORDER STAYING CASE PENDING DEFENDANT MONITRONICS' MOTION TO TRANSFER OTIS D. WRIGHT, II , District Judge . On December 16, 2013, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ("the Panel") created MDL No. 2493, In Re: Monitronics International, Inc. Telephone Consumer Protection Act Litigation. The Panel's Transfer Order designated the Northern District of West Virginia as the transferee court and the Honorable John P. Bailey as the presiding judge for all related matters. On September
Summary: ORDER STAYING CASE PENDING DEFENDANT MONITRONICS' MOTION TO TRANSFER OTIS D. WRIGHT, II , District Judge . On December 16, 2013, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ("the Panel") created MDL No. 2493, In Re: Monitronics International, Inc. Telephone Consumer Protection Act Litigation. The Panel's Transfer Order designated the Northern District of West Virginia as the transferee court and the Honorable John P. Bailey as the presiding judge for all related matters. On September 2..
More
ORDER STAYING CASE PENDING DEFENDANT MONITRONICS' MOTION TO TRANSFER
OTIS D. WRIGHT, II, District Judge.
On December 16, 2013, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ("the Panel") created MDL No. 2493, In Re: Monitronics International, Inc. Telephone Consumer Protection Act Litigation. The Panel's Transfer Order designated the Northern District of West Virginia as the transferee court and the Honorable John P. Bailey as the presiding judge for all related matters.
On September 22, 2016, Monitronics filed a motion with the Panel to transfer this case to the Northern District of West Virginia for consolidation or coordinated pretrial proceedings with similar cases in MDL No. 2493. (ECF No. 12); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1407(c)(ii) (allowing a party to initiate a transfer by filing an appropriate motion with the Panel). After reviewing the parties' filings in this case, the Court finds it appropriate to STAY this matter pending the Panel's decision on Monitronics' motion.
Accordingly, all dates and deadlines are VACATED. Should the Panel choose not to transfer this case, the Court will issue an order resetting the Scheduling Conference. Monitronics is ordered to file a copy of the Panel's decision with the Court within TEN DAYS of the decision's issuance.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
