From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In re Colonial Bancgroup, Inc. Securities Litigation

United States District Court, M.D. Alabama, Northern Division
Sep 25, 2009
CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:09cv104-MHT (WO) (M.D. Ala. Sep. 25, 2009)

Opinion

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:09cv104-MHT (WO).

September 25, 2009


OPINION AND ORDER


The Underwriter defendants, joined by defendant PricewaterhouseCoopers, move to suspend all proceedings pending the court's ruling on the effect of Colonial BancGroup, Inc.'s bankruptcy on this lawsuit. The motion will be granted.

In considering whether to grant a stay, the moving party bears the burden of establishing its necessity. See Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 708 (1997). Where a proposed order for a stay is at issue, a court must take into account "the competing interests which will be affected by the granting or refusal to grant a stay . . . [including] the possible damage which may result from the granting of a stay, the hardship or inequity which a party may suffer in being required to go forward, and the orderly course of justice measured in terms of the simplifying or complicating of issues, proof, and questions of law which could be expected to result from a stay." CMAX, Inc. v. Hall, 300 F.2d 265, 268 (9th Cir. 1962) (citing Landis v. North American Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254-255 (1936)). See also Pl.'s Resp. at 3. The plaintiffs in this case claim a delay would "disrupt the orderly course of justice and serve to complicate issues, proof, and questions of law." Pl.'s Resp. at 4 (citations omitted). Furthermore, the plaintiffs argue that an indefinite suspension places the plaintiffs in a state of "suspended animation." Id. In contrast, the movants assert that a suspension is necessary so as not to "thwart" the rationale behind a discretionary stay, which is at issue in this case, and insist that the plaintiffs "cannot possibly claim" to be prejudiced by such a "limited suspension." Def.'s Mot. at 1.

This court declines to engage in an extended analysis of the dangers of "justice delayed" in light of the brevity of this contemplated suspension. Instead, recognizing that the court has the "inherent power to control the disposition of the causes on its docket in a manner which will promote economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants[,]" the court determines that a limited suspension is warranted while it makes its decision as to the effect of Colonial BancGroup's bankruptcy. See CMAX, 300 F.2d at 268. However, this suspension applies only to the deadlines set forth in this litigation's overall scheduling order, as amended. As this suspension will hardly be "indefinite" and indeed of a very "limited" nature, the court finds that neither party will be harmed by this brief stay, while the court will be greatly aided by placing substantive decision-making in abeyance while it determines the bankruptcy matter.

It is therefore ORDERED that the Underwriter defendants' motion to suspend the proceedings pending the court's ruling on the effect of Colonial BancGroup's bankruptcy (doc. no. 238) is granted as to the scheduling order (doc. no. 215), as amended.

A copy of this checklist is available at the website for the USCA, 11th Circuit at www.ca11.uscourts.gov Effective on April 9, 2006, the new fee to file an appeal will increase from $255.00 to $455.00. CIVIL APPEALS JURISDICTION CHECKLIST

1. Appealable Orders : Appeals from final orders pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291: 28 U.S.C. § 158Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Mestre 701 F.2d 1365 1368 28 U.S.C. § 636 In cases involving multiple parties or multiple claims, 54Williams v. Bishop 732 F.2d 885 885-86 Budinich v. Becton Dickinson Co. 108 S.Ct. 1717 1721-22 100 L.Ed.2d 178LaChance v. Duffy's Draft House, Inc. 146 F.3d 832 837 Appeals pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a): Appeals pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) and Fed.R.App.P. 5 28 U.S.C. § 1292 Appeals pursuant to judicially created exceptions to the finality rule: Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp. 337 U.S. 541 546 93 L.Ed. 1528Atlantic Fed. Sav. Loan Ass'n v. Blythe Eastman Paine Webber, Inc. Gillespie v. United States Steel Corp. 379 U.S. 148 157 85 S.Ct. 308 312 13 L.Ed.2d 199 2. Time for Filing Rinaldo v. Corbett 256 F.3d 1276 1278 4 Fed.R.App.P. 4(a)(1): 3 THE NOTICE MUST BE RECEIVED AND FILED IN THE DISTRICT COURT NO LATER THAN THE LAST DAY OF THE APPEAL PERIOD — no additional days are provided for mailing. Fed.R.App.P. 4(a)(3): Fed.R.App.P. 4(a)(4): Fed.R.App.P. 4(a)(5) and 4(a)(6): Fed.R.App.P. 4(c): 28 U.S.C. § 1746 3. Format of the notice of appeal : See also 3pro se 4. Effect of a notice of appeal : 4

Courts of Appeals have jurisdiction conferred and strictly limited by statute: (a) Only final orders and judgments of district courts, or final orders of bankruptcy courts which have been appealed to and fully resolved by a district court under , generally are appealable. A final decision is one that "ends the litigation on the merits and leaves nothing for the court to do but execute the judgment." , , (11th Cir. 1983). A magistrate judge's report and recommendation is not final and appealable until judgment thereon is entered by a district court judge. (c). (b) a judgment as to fewer than all parties or all claims is not a final, appealable decision unless the district court has certified the judgment for immediate review under Fed.R.Civ.P. (b). , , (11th Cir. 1984). A judg ment which resolves all issues except matters, such as attorneys' fees and costs, that are collateral to the merits, is immediately appealable. , 486 U.S. 196, 201, , , (1988); , , (11th Cir. 1998). (c) Appeals are permitted from orders "granting, continuing, modifying, refusing or dissolving injunctions or refusing to dissolve or modify injunctions . . ." and from "[i]nterlocutory decrees . . . determining the rights and liabilities of parties to admiralty cases in which appeals from final decrees are allowed." Interlocutory appeals from orders denying temporary restraining orders are not permitted. (d) : The certification specified in (b) must be obtained before a petition for permission to appeal is filed in the Court of Appeals. The district court's denial of a motion for certification is not itself appealable. (e) Limited exceptions are discussed in cases including, but not limited to: , , , 69S.Ct. 1221, 1225-26, (1949); , 890 F.2d 371, 376 (11th Cir. 1989); , , , , , (1964). Rev.: 4/04 : The timely filing of a notice of appeal is mandatory and jurisdictional. , , (11th Cir. 2001). In civil cases, Fed.R.App.P. (a) and (c) set the following time limits: (a) A notice of appeal in compliance with the requirements set forth in Fed.R.App.P. must be filed in the district court within 30 days after the entry of the order or judgment appealed from. However, if the United States or an officer or agency thereof is a party, the notice of appeal must be filed in the district court within 60 days after such entry. Special filing provisions for inmates are discussed below. (b) "If one party timely files a notice of appeal, any other party may file a notice of appeal within 14 days after the date when the first notice was filed, or within the time otherwise prescribed by this Rule 4(a), whichever period ends later." (c) If any party makes a timely motion in the district court under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure of a type specified in this rule, the time for appeal for all parties runs from the date of entry of the order disposing of the last such timely filed motion. (d) Under certain limited circumstances, the district court may extend the time to file a notice of appeal. Under Rule 4(a)(5), the time may be extended if a motion for an extension is filed within 30 days after expiration of the time otherwise provided to file a notice of appeal, upon a showing of excusable neglect or good cause. Under Rule 4(a)(6), the time may be extended if the district court finds upon motion that a party did not timely receive notice of the entry of the judgment or order, and that no party would be prejudiced by an extension. (e) If an inmate confined to an institution files a notice of appeal in either a civil case or a criminal case, the notice of appeal is timely if it is deposited in the institution's internal mail system on or before the last day for filing. Timely filing may be shown by a declaration in compliance with or a notarized statement, either of which must set forth the date of deposit and state that first-class postage has been prepaid. Form 1, Appendix of Forms to the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, is a suitable format. Fed.R.App.P. (c). A notice of appeal must be signed by the appellant. A district court loses jurisdiction (authority) to act after the filing of a timely notice of appeal, except for actions in aid of appellate jurisdiction or to rule on a timely motion of the type specified in Fed.R.App.P. (a)(4).


Summaries of

In re Colonial Bancgroup, Inc. Securities Litigation

United States District Court, M.D. Alabama, Northern Division
Sep 25, 2009
CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:09cv104-MHT (WO) (M.D. Ala. Sep. 25, 2009)
Case details for

In re Colonial Bancgroup, Inc. Securities Litigation

Case Details

Full title:In re COLONIAL BANCGROUP, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION

Court:United States District Court, M.D. Alabama, Northern Division

Date published: Sep 25, 2009

Citations

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:09cv104-MHT (WO) (M.D. Ala. Sep. 25, 2009)