Summary
In Francis v. Mead Johnson & Co., No. 10-cv-00701-JLK, 2010 WL 3733023 at *1 (D. Colo. Sept. 16, 2010), the court ruled that, to prevail on a motion to strike class allegations, a defendant "must demonstrate from the face of plaintiffs' complaint that it will be impossible to certify the classes alleged by the plaintiffs regardless of the facts the plaintiffs may be able to prove" (quoting Bryant v. Food Lion, Inc., 774 F. Supp. 1484, 1495 (D.S.C. 1991)) (emphasis in original).
Summary of this case from Wornicki v. Brokerpriceopinion.com, Inc.Opinion
Civil Action No. 1:10-cv-00701-JLK.
December 20, 2010
ORDER
This matter is currently before me on Defendant's Unopposed Motion to Stay Proceedings (doc. 36). As I anticipated in my Minute Order dated September 16, 2010 (doc. 27), the Defendant has filed a motion to transfer all actions related to the marketing of its Enfamil Lipil products to the Southern District of Indiana for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings. That motion is set for argument on January 27, 2011.
It is apparent that a stay pending resolution of Defendant's motion to transfer will not prejudice either party. Furthermore, it will better conserve the court's and the parties' resources. Accordingly, Defendant's Unopposed Motion to Stay (doc. 36) is GRANTED pending resolution of its Motion for Transfer by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation.
Dated: December 20, 2010