HANKINS v. CARMAX, INC., RDB-11-03685. (2012)
Court: District Court, D. Maryland
Number: infdco20120118b57
Visitors: 10
Filed: Jan. 13, 2012
Latest Update: Jan. 13, 2012
Summary: MEMORANDUM ORDER RICHARD D. BENNETT, District Judge. On January 11, 2012, this Court held a Motions Hearing in which it GRANTED in part and DENIED in part Intervenor Plaintiff Barry A. Drake's Motion to Remand and for Sanctions (ECF No. 8). Specifically, this Court GRANTED the Motion to Remand and DENIED the Motion for Sanctions. The next day, on January 12, 2011, this Court entered an Order (ECF No. 24) remanding the case to the Circuit Court for Baltimore County and declining to impose sanc
Summary: MEMORANDUM ORDER RICHARD D. BENNETT, District Judge. On January 11, 2012, this Court held a Motions Hearing in which it GRANTED in part and DENIED in part Intervenor Plaintiff Barry A. Drake's Motion to Remand and for Sanctions (ECF No. 8). Specifically, this Court GRANTED the Motion to Remand and DENIED the Motion for Sanctions. The next day, on January 12, 2011, this Court entered an Order (ECF No. 24) remanding the case to the Circuit Court for Baltimore County and declining to impose sanct..
More
MEMORANDUM ORDER
RICHARD D. BENNETT, District Judge.
On January 11, 2012, this Court held a Motions Hearing in which it GRANTED in part and DENIED in part Intervenor Plaintiff Barry A. Drake's Motion to Remand and for Sanctions (ECF No. 8). Specifically, this Court GRANTED the Motion to Remand and DENIED the Motion for Sanctions. The next day, on January 12, 2011, this Court entered an Order (ECF No. 24) remanding the case to the Circuit Court for Baltimore County and declining to impose sanctions. On January 13, 2012, the Court issued a Memorandum Opinion supplementing the reasons indicated on the record concerning its decision to remand the case.
Subsequent to the issuance of the Remand Order (ECF No. 24), Defendants filed a Motion to Stay Enforcement of Court's Order on Remand (ECF No. 26). Pursuant to this Court's decision on the record during the January 11, 2012 hearing and the Order entered on January 12, 2012, this Court no longer has jurisdiction over this matter. Additionally, for the reasons stated in Intervenor Plaintiff's Response to Defendants Motion to Stay Enforcement of the Order, it is this 13th day of January 2012, ORDERED that:
1. Defendants' Motion to Stay Enforcement of Court's Order on Remand (ECF No. 26) is DENIED;
2. The Clerk of the Court transmit copies of this Order and accompanying Memorandum Opinion to Counsel;
3. The Clerk of the Court CLOSE THIS CASE.
Source: Leagle
