§Why CasetextPricing

Soppet v. Enhanced Recovery Corporation

MOTION

15 Cited authorities

  1. Landis v. North American Co.

    299 U.S. 248 (1936)   Cited 8,283 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 425 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. Texas Ind. Prod., Royalty Owners v. E.P.A

    410 F.3d 964 (7th Cir. 2005)   Cited 94 times
    Holding that "[r]epeating the conclusory allegations of a complaint is not enough" to establish standing

  4. Ingersoll Mill. Mach. Co. v. Granger

    833 F.2d 680 (7th Cir. 1987)   Cited 83 times
    Holding that Belgian judgment should be enforced because it was not contrary to Illinois contract law

  5. Markel Am. Ins. Co. v. Dolan

    787 F. Supp. 2d 776 (N.D. Ill. 2011)   Cited 31 times
    In Markel Am. Ins. Co. v. Dolan, 787 F.Supp.2d 776 (N.D.Ill. 2011) cited by Liberty, the insurer sought a declaratory judgment of no coverage and the insured counterclaimed alleging bad faith.

  6. Board of Trustees of Teachers' Retire. v. Worldcom 901

    244 F. Supp. 2d 900 (N.D. Ill. 2002)   Cited 40 times
    Finding the issue of removal of a 1933 Act claim under § 1452 legally difficult, and staying the case pending transfer to a MDL court

  7. 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

  8. Walker v. Merck Co., Inc.

    Case No. 05-CV-360-DRH (S.D. Ill. Jun. 22, 2005)   Cited 27 times
    Finding judicial economy supported stay where "it is almost certain that the transferee court will hear and decide many of the same issues Plaintiffs ask this Court to tackle in ruling on their motion to remand"

  9. Emerson v. Lincoln Electric Holdings, Inc.

    Case No. 09-6004-CV-SJ-GAF (W.D. Mo. Mar. 12, 2009)   Cited 8 times
    Granting motion to stay pending MDL Panel's ruling on transfer and noting that even if MDL Panel denied transfer, the stay would remain in effect until the court ruled on the pending motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction

  10. Blake v. Enhanced Recovery Company, LLC

    CASE NO. 3:10-cv-1178-J-37JBT (M.D. Fla. Aug. 17, 2011)   Cited 4 times

    CASE NO. 3:10-cv-1178-J-37JBT. August 17, 2011 ORDER JOEL TOOMEY, Magistrate Judge THIS CAUSE is before the Court on Plaintiff's Amended Motion to Excuse Her Recent Missed Deadline Under Local Rule 4.04, to Extend Time to File Motion for Class Certification Pursuant to Local Rule 4.04(b), and to Conduct Discovery ("the Motion") (Doc. 28). Plaintiff seeks "an extension of approximately 90 days, or as many days as the Court deems appropriate, in which to conduct discovery, obtain meaningful responses

  11. Rule 16 - Pretrial Conferences; Scheduling; Management

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 16   Cited 33,785 times   51 Legal Analyses
    Adopting the sanctions authorized by Rule 37(b)

  12. Section 1407 - Multidistrict litigation

    28 U.S.C. § 1407   Cited 7,055 times   105 Legal Analyses
    Authorizing consolidation of pretrial proceedings for related cases filed in multiple federal districts

  13. Section 227 - Restrictions on use of telephone equipment

    47 U.S.C. § 227   Cited 5,674 times   734 Legal Analyses
    Granting exclusive jurisdiction to federal courts over actions brought by state attorney generals