Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Sabo v. Dennis Technologies

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS


April 30, 2007

SHERRILL SABO, PLAINTIFF,
v.
DENNIS TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, AND MICHAEL DENNIS DEFENDANTS/ THIRD-PARTY PLAINTIFFS,
v.
SPRINT NEXTEL CORPORATION, F/K/A SPRINT CORPORATION, F/K/A UNITED UTILITIES, INC., AND NEXTEL RETAIL STORES, LLC, THIRD-PARTY DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Herndon, District Judge

ORDER

On April 20, 2007, the Court issued an Order (Doc. 7), requiring the parties file a jurisdictional memorandum by April 30, 2007, as there were outstanding questions regarding the existence of subject matter jurisdiction. Defendants now seek a stay (Doc. 8) of the briefing deadlines for the one pending motion in this case: third-party defendant Sprint Nextel Corporation and Nextel Retail Stores, LLC's (collectively, "Sprint Nextel") Motion to Dissolve Preliminary Injunction (Doc. 4) and Motion to Stay Proceedings and Compel Arbitration (Doc. 5).

Defendants request the Court stay briefing on all substantive matters, which includes Sprint Nextel's currently pending Motions, until the inquiry regarding subject matter jurisdiction has been resolved. If the Court determines from the parties' jurisdictional memoranda that it has subject matter jurisdiction over this proceeding, Defendants request an additional 21 days from the date of such determination in which to respond to Sprint Nextel's Motion to Dissolve the Preliminary Injunction (Doc. 4) and Motion to Stay Proceedings and Compel Arbitration (Doc. 5). Sprint Nextel has responded in opposition (Doc. 9) to granting a stay. Plaintiff has not weighed in on the issue.

Taking into account the parties' respective arguments, the Court hereby GRANTS Defendants' Motion to Stay (Doc. 8). Accordingly, all pending deadlines shall be stayed until the Court determines the jurisdictional issue. Thereafter, the parties shall have an additional 21 days from the date of the Court's determination of jurisdiction to respond to all pending motions, if the Court decides there is subject matter jurisdiction. (However, if the Court determines subject matter jurisdiction does not exist, it will not have authority to extend pleading deadlines, as the case will then be remanded back to state court.)

IT IS SO ORDERED.

David R. Herndon United States District Judge

20070430

© 1992-2007 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.