JOINT MOTION TO STAY INITIAL CASE DEADLINES PENDING RESOLUTION OF DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE

SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG, District Judge.

The parties in the above-captioned action hereby move to stay the current initial case deadlines in this matter until resolution of Defendants' motion to transfer venue to the United States District Court for the District of Columbia (see ECF No. 15). Specifically, the parties seek to postpone the current deadline for Defendants to answer or otherwise respond to Plaintiffs' Complaint and the deadlines set forth in the Court's December 13, 2012, Order Setting Initial Case Management Conference and ADR Deadlines (ECF No. 2) as revised by the Court's February 13, 2013, Case Management Scheduling Order for Reassigned Civil Cases (ECF No. 16). This is the first request for a time modification of any kind in this case. Good cause exists for granting this motion, as follows:

Complaint on or around December 20, 2012. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(a)(2), Defendants must answer or otherwise respond to the Complaint on or before February 19, 2013. The Court's Order Setting Initial Case Management Conference and ADR Deadlines set an initial case management conference for March 14, 2013, but the case management conference was rescheduled for May 22, 2013 after the case was reassigned.

2. Counsel for the parties held a conference call to discuss case management on January 24, 2013. At that time, Plaintiffs' counsel informed Defendants' counsel that Plaintiffs intend to amend their complaint to add certain additional claims. Because of certain jurisdictional notice requirements that may apply to some of those claims, however, the complaint would not be amended until after March 4, 2013. See 16 U.S.C. § 1540(g). During the call, Defendants' counsel informed Plaintiffs' counsel that Defendants intended to move to transfer venue for this action to the United States District Court for the District of Columbia.

3. Defendants filed their motion to transfer venue on February 12, 2013 (ECF No. 15). Plaintiffs oppose the transfer, and the motion is set for a hearing on April 23, 2013.

4. Because Plaintiffs intend to amend their complaint after Defendants' current February 19 response date, that response date should be extended to avoid the duplication of effort and waste of resources in responding to a complaint that will be amended thereafter. In addition, if granted, Defendants' pending motion to transfer would remove the case from this Court's docket altogether. Thus, judicial economy favors staying the current initial case deadlines until the Court can resolve the motion to transfer. Rescheduling of Defendants' answer date, the date for filing the Case Management Statement, the initial case management conference, and the meet and confer and ADR deadlines set forth in the Court's December 13, 2012, scheduling order should therefore not occur until it is certain that this case will proceed in this jurisdiction. Should the court deny the motion to transfer venue, the parties propose to submit a proposed schedule within ten days of such denial.

Based upon the foregoing, the parties' motion to stay current initial case deadlines should be granted.

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.