PERRIGO COMPANY v. MERIAL LIMITED, 8:14-CV-403. (2015)
Court: District Court, D. Nebraska
Number: infdco20150629919
Visitors: 16
Filed: Jun. 26, 2015
Latest Update: Jun. 26, 2015
Summary: ORDER JOHN M. GERRARD , District Judge . This matter is before the Court on the plaintiffs' Motion for Stay of Court's June 12, 2015 Order (filing 115). That motion will be granted in part. The plaintiffs have until June 29, 2015, to object to the Magistrate Judge's June 12 order granting the defendants' motion for change of venue. NECivR 72.2(a); NECivR 6.1(a). Accordingly, it is appropriate to grant the plaintiffs' motion to stay to that extent: the Court will not transfer the case befor
Summary: ORDER JOHN M. GERRARD , District Judge . This matter is before the Court on the plaintiffs' Motion for Stay of Court's June 12, 2015 Order (filing 115). That motion will be granted in part. The plaintiffs have until June 29, 2015, to object to the Magistrate Judge's June 12 order granting the defendants' motion for change of venue. NECivR 72.2(a); NECivR 6.1(a). Accordingly, it is appropriate to grant the plaintiffs' motion to stay to that extent: the Court will not transfer the case before..
More
ORDER
JOHN M. GERRARD, District Judge.
This matter is before the Court on the plaintiffs' Motion for Stay of Court's June 12, 2015 Order (filing 115). That motion will be granted in part.
The plaintiffs have until June 29, 2015, to object to the Magistrate Judge's June 12 order granting the defendants' motion for change of venue. NECivR 72.2(a); NECivR 6.1(a). Accordingly, it is appropriate to grant the plaintiffs' motion to stay to that extent: the Court will not transfer the case before the plaintiffs have had an opportunity to object, and the Court has considered any objection. And, depending upon how the Court rules on any objection, the Court will afford the plaintiffs enough time to petition the Eighth Circuit for a writ of mandamus.1 See In re Nine Mile Ltd., 673 F.2d 242, 243 (8th Cir. 1982). The Court will also, depending on its resolution of the venue issue, address the disposition of the defendant's still-pending motion to certify an interlocutory appeal (filing 108).
IT IS ORDERED:
1. The plaintiffs' Motion for Stay of Court's June 12, 2015 Order (filing 115) is granted in part.
2. Transfer of this case to the Northern District of Georgia will be stayed pending the Court's disposition of objections, if any, to the Magistrate Judge's transfer order.
FootNotes
1. An interlocutory order granting a change of venue is generally not appealable, but mandamus may be available in "`really extraordinary situations.'" Emerson Elec. Co. v. Black & Decker Mfg. Co., 606 F.2d 234, 237 (8th Cir. 1979); see, Nixon v. Coeur D'Alene Tribe, 164 F.3d 1102, 1107 (8th Cir. 1999); United States Fire Ins. Co. v. Am. Family Life Assurance Co., 787 F.2d 438, 439 (8th Cir. 1986).
Source: Leagle
