City Of Cincinnati v. Amerisourcebergen Drug Corporation, 2:17-cv-713. (2017)
Court: District Court, S.D. Ohio
Number: infdco20171117879
Visitors: 4
Filed: Nov. 08, 2017
Latest Update: Nov. 08, 2017
Summary: PRETRIAL ORDER NO. 3 EDMUND A. SARGUS, JR. , District Judge . This matter is before the Court on the unopposed motion of the Manufacturer Defendants to stay all proceedings in this matter pending decision from the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ("JPML") on transfer of this action for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1407. (ECF No. 88.) The JPML will decide whether transfer of this action into a multidistrict litigation ("MDL") is appropri
Summary: PRETRIAL ORDER NO. 3 EDMUND A. SARGUS, JR. , District Judge . This matter is before the Court on the unopposed motion of the Manufacturer Defendants to stay all proceedings in this matter pending decision from the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ("JPML") on transfer of this action for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1407. (ECF No. 88.) The JPML will decide whether transfer of this action into a multidistrict litigation ("MDL") is appropria..
More
PRETRIAL ORDER NO. 3
EDMUND A. SARGUS, JR., District Judge.
This matter is before the Court on the unopposed motion of the Manufacturer Defendants to stay all proceedings in this matter pending decision from the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ("JPML") on transfer of this action for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407. (ECF No. 88.) The JPML will decide whether transfer of this action into a multidistrict litigation ("MDL") is appropriate, and if so, what court should hear the MDL.
"[T]he power to stay proceedings is incidental to the power inherent in every court to control the disposition of the causes on its docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants." Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936). Because the JPML has scheduled this case for a hearing on November 30, 2017, to address consolidation and assignment to a single judge, the Court GRANTS Defendants' motion and stays this case pending the decision of the JPML.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
