§Why CasetextPricing

Buelow et al v. Alibaba Group Holding Limited et al

MOTION to Stay

11 Cited authorities

  1. Landis v. North American Co.

    299 U.S. 248 (1936)   Cited 8,552 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a decision to stay proceedings "calls for the exercise of judgment, which must weigh competing interests and maintain an even balance"

  2. Rivers v. Walt Disney Co.

    980 F. Supp. 1358 (C.D. Cal. 1997)   Cited 430 times
    Holding district courts, when considering motion to stay proceedings during pendency of JPML proceeding, should consider whether parties would be prejudiced by stay or lack thereof

  3. Fuller v. Amerigas Propane, Inc.

    NOS. C 09-2493 TEH 09-2616 TEH (N.D. Cal. Aug. 3, 2009)   Cited 25 times
    Holding that Defendant's arguments showing judicial economy would be served by the stay

  4. Freitas v. McKesson Corp.

    NO. C 11-05967 JW (N.D. Cal. Jan. 10, 2012)   Cited 12 times
    In Freitas, the court recently granted a defendant's motion to stay where the plaintiffs partly and erroneously argued that they would experience prejudice if their case was transferred to a MDL court, rather than if the district court granted the defendant's motion to stay.

  5. Jones v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co.

    No. C 13-2415 PJH (N.D. Cal. Jul. 8, 2013)   Cited 10 times
    Holding that because the case "raises jurisdictional issues that are both complex and similar to those in other MDL-bound cases, application of the Meyers approach also favors a stay"

  6. Davis v. Pfizer, Inc.

    No. C 14-1204 SI (N.D. Cal. Apr. 21, 2014)   Cited 1 times

    No. C 14-1204 SI 04-21-2014 KATHLEEN DAVIS, Plaintiff, v. PFIZER, INC.; MCKESSON CORPORATION; and DOES 1-50, Defendants. SUSAN ILLSTON ORDER: (1) GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS PENDING A DECISION ON TRANSFER BY THE JUDICIAL PANEL ON MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION; AND (2) DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO REMAND Defendant Pfizer, Inc.'s motion to stay the proceedings, and plaintiff Kathleen Davis' motion to remand the action to state court, are scheduled for a hearing on

  7. Hubuschman v. Zuckerberg

    No. C-12-3366 MMC (N.D. Cal. Sep. 11, 2012)

    No. C-12-3366 MMC No. C-12-3367 MMC No. C-12-3642 MMC 09-11-2012 HAL HUBUSCHMAN, Plaintiff, v. MARK ZUCKERBERG, et al., Defendants WILLIAM COLE, Plaintiff, v. MARK ZUCKERBERG, et al., Defendants LIDIA LEVY, Plaintiff, v. MARK ZUCKERBERG, et al., Defendants. MAXINE M. CHESNEY ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS FOR STAY OF PROCEEDINGS; VACATING HEARING Before the Court are defendants' motions for a stay of proceedings, filed in each of the above-titled cases, and plaintiffs' motions to remand, likewise

  8. IN RE RESERVE FUND SECURITIES DERIVATIVE LIT

    598 F. Supp. 2d 1370 (J.P.M.L. 2009)   Cited 1 times

    MDL No. 2011. February 10, 2009. TRANSFER ORDER JOHN G. HEYBURN II, Chairman. Before the entire Panel : The Reserve defendants have jointly moved, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings of this litigation in the Southern District of New York. Plaintiffs in the District of Minnesota action oppose the motion. Plaintiff in the District of Massachusetts action asks the Panel to defer its ruling pending a ruling by the Massachusetts court on plaintiff's motion

  9. Section 1331 - Federal question

    28 U.S.C. § 1331   Cited 99,883 times   136 Legal Analyses
    Finding that in order to invoke federal question jurisdiction, a plaintiff's claims must arise "under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States."

  10. Rule 1 - Scope and Purpose

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 1   Cited 15,612 times   51 Legal Analyses
    Recognizing the federal rules of civil procedure should be employed to promote the "just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action and proceeding"

  11. Section 1407 - Multidistrict litigation

    28 U.S.C. § 1407   Cited 7,110 times   106 Legal Analyses
    Authorizing consolidation of pretrial proceedings for related cases filed in multiple federal districts