ROBBINS HDD, LLC v. ELITE DIRECTIONAL DRILLING, LLC, 14 C 1977. (2014)
Court: District Court, N.D. Illinois
Number: infdco20140515a36
Visitors: 2
Filed: May 13, 2014
Latest Update: May 13, 2014
Summary: MEMORANDUM ORDER MILTON I. SHADUR, Senior District Judge. After Elite Directional Drilling, LLC ("Elite") removed this action brought by Robbins HDD, LLC from the Circuit Court of Cook County to this District Court, Elite filed a motion to dismiss or stay the action because, as Robbins put it in its response to that motion, another action pending in an Arkansas state court is assertedly "between the same parties as are the parties to this case and the issues are the same." Although the litiga
Summary: MEMORANDUM ORDER MILTON I. SHADUR, Senior District Judge. After Elite Directional Drilling, LLC ("Elite") removed this action brought by Robbins HDD, LLC from the Circuit Court of Cook County to this District Court, Elite filed a motion to dismiss or stay the action because, as Robbins put it in its response to that motion, another action pending in an Arkansas state court is assertedly "between the same parties as are the parties to this case and the issues are the same." Although the litigan..
More
MEMORANDUM ORDER
MILTON I. SHADUR, Senior District Judge.
After Elite Directional Drilling, LLC ("Elite") removed this action brought by Robbins HDD, LLC from the Circuit Court of Cook County to this District Court, Elite filed a motion to dismiss or stay the action because, as Robbins put it in its response to that motion, another action pending in an Arkansas state court is assertedly "between the same parties as are the parties to this case and the issues are the same." Although the litigants' presentations are extraordinarily confusing because of the similarity (though not identity) of some of the parties' names involved, and although counsel in the Arkansas case have filed a Joint Motion for Continuance there that states incorrectly "That Defendant has sued Plaintiff in Cook County, Illinois," a comparison of the pleadings in the two actions shows that such is simply not the case. In brief:
1. As the Amended Complaint of Law in the Arkansas case (Ex. B to Elite's motion here) reflects, that action is between "Elite Directional Drilling & Utilities, LLC" and "Universal Horizontal Directional Drilling Company, Inc." — not the parties here.
2. Whatever the interrelationship between the claims in the two actions may be, they are clearly separate lawsuits based on different allegations.
3. Paragraph 6 of the Joint Motion for a Continuance also contributes to the confusion by asserting:
That plaintiff in this court is removing the case filed in Cook County, Illinois, to Federal Court and is requesting a transfer to Arkansas.
Although the first portion of that sentence is accurate, this Court cannot of course transfer this action to an Arkansas state court.
Accordingly Elite's motion (Dkt. 15) is denied. This action has previously been set for a status hearing at 9:00 a.m. on June 23, 2014, and that setting still stands. In the meantime, the April 23, 2014 extension date that had been granted for Elite's filing of a responsive pleading in this action has come and gone, so it is granted a further extension until May 23, 2014 to answer or otherwise plead to the Complaint here.
Source: Leagle
