SPRINT COMMUNICATIONS CO., L.P. v. ERIZON CALIFORNIA, INC., 4:14CV1750 RWS. (2014)
Court: District Court, E.D. Missouri
Number: infdco20141104914
Visitors: 9
Filed: Nov. 03, 2014
Latest Update: Nov. 03, 2014
Summary: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER RODNEY W. SIPPEL, District Judge. This newly transferred case is before me on my review of the file. The California district court severed the claims against defendant Verizon and transferred them here at the request of the parties because they claimed they were already in global settlement negotiations in a similar case pending before the Honorable Carol E. Jackson styled Sprint Communications Co., L.P. v. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co, et al., Cause Number 4:14CV850.
Summary: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER RODNEY W. SIPPEL, District Judge. This newly transferred case is before me on my review of the file. The California district court severed the claims against defendant Verizon and transferred them here at the request of the parties because they claimed they were already in global settlement negotiations in a similar case pending before the Honorable Carol E. Jackson styled Sprint Communications Co., L.P. v. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co, et al., Cause Number 4:14CV850. ..
More
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
RODNEY W. SIPPEL, District Judge.
This newly transferred case is before me on my review of the file. The California district court severed the claims against defendant Verizon and transferred them here at the request of the parties because they claimed they were already in global settlement negotiations in a similar case pending before the Honorable Carol E. Jackson styled Sprint Communications Co., L.P. v. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co, et al., Cause Number 4:14CV850. The parties told the California court that they wanted these cases consolidated in this district. I have not yet been notified of any pending motion to consolidate the instant case with Judge Jackson's, and a review of the docket sheet in that case reveals that it has been stayed pending a ruling from the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the parties shall file a joint status memorandum within 10 days of the date of this Order advising me whether they intend to move for consolidation and/or a stay of this case. In the alternative, the parties may notify me of a pending motion for consolidation or file appropriate motions for stay within 10 days of the date of this Order.
Source: Leagle
