From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Lewis v. Drouillard

United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
Jul 16, 2009
Case No. 09-11059-DT (E.D. Mich. Jul. 16, 2009)

Opinion

Case No. 09-11059-DT.

July 16, 2009


ORDER GRANTING IN PART MOTION FOR LIMITED STAY AND SETTING BRIEFING SCHEDULE


Before the court are two pending motions for a stay: a May 22, 2009 motion to stay filed by Defendant United Parcel Service, Inc., in which Plaintiffs concur, and a June 9, 2009 motion to stay filed by Defendant Dr. Paul Drouillard. The motions have been fully briefed and the court concludes a hearing is unnecessary. See E.D. Mich. LR 7.1(e)(2). The court has reviewed the briefs and determines that a stay would conserve the resources of counsel and this court, as well as generally serve the interests of justice. Thus, the court will grant the motions and issue a limited stay pending the resolution of Brown v. Cassens Transp. Co., 546 F.3d 347 (6th Cir. 2008), petition for cert. filed May 6, 2009. The stay will be imposed on all issues, except that the court will allow Defendant Drouillard to file a limited motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that two pending motions to stay [Dkt. ## 18 23] are GRANTED IN PART and this case is STAYED pending resolution of Brown v. Cassens Transp. Co., 546 F.3d 347 (6th Cir. 2008). Plaintiff is DIRECTED to notify the court immediately when the Supreme Court rules on the pending petition for certiorari.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, despite the stay, Defendant Drouillard may file a limited motion under Rule 12(b)(6) on any non-RICO issue which is specific only to Defendant Drouillard. Any such motion shall be filed on or before July 20, 2009. The parties should refer to the local rules for a briefing schedule, and this court will determine whether a hearing is necessary after receiving the motion to dismiss. See E.D. Mich. LR 7.1(e)(2).

After the stay is lifted all parties will be allowed to file more comprehensive motions under Rule 12(b)(6) and Defendant Drouillard's pursuit of a limited motion at this point will not prejudice his, or any party's, right to file a Rule 12(b)(6) motion at a later date.


Summaries of

Lewis v. Drouillard

United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
Jul 16, 2009
Case No. 09-11059-DT (E.D. Mich. Jul. 16, 2009)
Case details for

Lewis v. Drouillard

Case Details

Full title:SAMMY LEWIS, et al., Plaintiffs, v. DR. PAUL DROUILLARD, et al., Defendants

Court:United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division

Date published: Jul 16, 2009

Citations

Case No. 09-11059-DT (E.D. Mich. Jul. 16, 2009)