Oliver v. Lyft, Inc., CV419-063. (2019)
Court: District Court, S.D. Georgia
Number: infdco20190415e53
Visitors: 9
Filed: Apr. 12, 2019
Latest Update: Apr. 12, 2019
Summary: ORDER CHRISTOPHER L. RAY , Magistrate Judge . Shortly before the Court issued its previous Order (doc. 98), defendant Lyft, Inc. filed a Notice which addressed some of the Court's concerns. See doc. 96. Lyft's filing, however, does not address the status of its Motion to Compel Arbitration, and, more specifically, whether consideration of that motion should precede the Court's determination of the appropriateness of filing conditions on Oliver. See doc. 33 (Motion to Compel Arbitration
Summary: ORDER CHRISTOPHER L. RAY , Magistrate Judge . Shortly before the Court issued its previous Order (doc. 98), defendant Lyft, Inc. filed a Notice which addressed some of the Court's concerns. See doc. 96. Lyft's filing, however, does not address the status of its Motion to Compel Arbitration, and, more specifically, whether consideration of that motion should precede the Court's determination of the appropriateness of filing conditions on Oliver. See doc. 33 (Motion to Compel Arbitration)..
More
ORDER
CHRISTOPHER L. RAY, Magistrate Judge.
Shortly before the Court issued its previous Order (doc. 98), defendant Lyft, Inc. filed a Notice which addressed some of the Court's concerns. See doc. 96. Lyft's filing, however, does not address the status of its Motion to Compel Arbitration, and, more specifically, whether consideration of that motion should precede the Court's determination of the appropriateness of filing conditions on Oliver. See doc. 33 (Motion to Compel Arbitration); see also doc. 97 (supplementing Lyft's previously filed motion to impose conditions on Oliver's continued litigation, and requesting that this Court "impose a nationwide pre-filing order").
In the interest of clarity, therefore, the Court VACATES its prior Order (doc. 98) and replaces its directions as follows:
(1) Within 14 days of this Order, Lyft is DIRECTED to file a response concerning whether the Court must resolve its arbitration motion before it considers whether to impose conditions on Oliver's ongoing litigation;
(2) Within 14 days of this Order, Oliver is DIRECTED to respond to Lyft's pending Motion to Declare Plaintiff a Vexatious Litigant, and to SHOW CAUSE why the conditions imposed on his litigation in this Court, in Oliver v. County of Chatham, et al., CV417-101, and Oliver v. City of Pooler, et al., CV418-100, should not apply to this case. He is further DIRECTED to file a single document discussing both issues1; and
(3) All deadlines in this case, other than those specifically imposed above, remain STAYED pending the parties' respective responses and, if appropriate, Oliver's compliance with any conditions imposed.
SO ORDERED.
FootNotes
1. Oliver remains free to withdraw any of his previously filed motions. however, that they are relevant to the arguments raised in Lyft's supplemental brief (doc. 97), the Court will consider them.
Source: Leagle
