From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Wright v. Krispy Kreme Doughnuts, Inc.

United States District Court, M.D. North Carolina
Apr 4, 2005
1:04CV00832 (M.D.N.C. Apr. 4, 2005)

Opinion

1:04CV00832.

April 4, 2005


ORDER


Pending before this court are several motions to stay this action: (1) Motion by Nominal Defendant Krispy Kreme Doughnuts, Inc. to Stay Proceedings Pursuant to North Carolina General Statutes § 55-7-43, filed by Krispy Kreme Doughnuts, Inc. ("Krispy Kreme"), acting through a Special Committee of independent directors charged with investigating and determining whether it is in the best interests of Krispy Kreme to pursue this litigation; (2) Motion to Stay Proceedings Pursuant to North Carolina Business Corporation Act § 55-7-43 [26] filed by Scott Livengood, Erskine Bowles, Mary Davis Holt, William T. Lynch, Jr., John N. McAleer, James H. Morgan, Dr. Su Hua Newton, Robert L. Strickland, Togo D. West, Jr., John W. Tate, Randy S. Casstevens, and R. Frank Murphy (the "Director Defendants"); and (3) Motion to Stay Proceedings Pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 55-7-43 filed by Steven D. Smith, Joseph A. McAleer, Jr., John McAleer Orrell, Greater DFW Doughnuts, Inc., Greater DFW Doughnuts, L.L.P., Arlington Doughnut Company, L.L.C., Grapevine Doughnut Company, L.L.C., Frisco Doughnut Company, L.L.C., Euless Doughnut Company, L.L.C., Old Towne Doughnut Company, L.L.P., Hulen St. Doughnut Company, L.L.P. (the "Franchise Defendants").

This court finds that because the findings of the Special Committee will play an important role in the outcome of the action, a stay is warranted. The court also notes, however, that a substantial amount of time has passed between Plaintiffs' demand on Krispy Kreme's Board of Directors, the appointment of a Special Committee, and current events. Thus, only a limited stay of 60 days is appropriate. In the event that substantial progress is being made toward completion of the Special Committee's report, Defendants may request a hearing to show why some additional time will be necessary. Therefore,

IT IS ORDERED that Motion by Nominal Defendant Krispy Kreme Doughnuts, Inc. to Stay Proceedings Pursuant to North Carolina General Statutes § 55-7-43 is GRANTED. The proceedings are stayed for sixty (60) days.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Motion to Stay Proceedings Pursuant to North Carolina Business Corporation Act § 55-7-43 [26] is GRANTED. The proceedings are stayed for sixty (60) days.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Motion to Stay Proceedings Pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 55-7-43 is GRANTED. The proceedings are stayed for sixty (60) days.


Summaries of

Wright v. Krispy Kreme Doughnuts, Inc.

United States District Court, M.D. North Carolina
Apr 4, 2005
1:04CV00832 (M.D.N.C. Apr. 4, 2005)
Case details for

Wright v. Krispy Kreme Doughnuts, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:WILLIAM DOUGLAS WRIGHT and JUDY WOODALL, Plaintiffs, v. KRISPY KREME…

Court:United States District Court, M.D. North Carolina

Date published: Apr 4, 2005

Citations

1:04CV00832 (M.D.N.C. Apr. 4, 2005)