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.

Howard v. Stanley

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS


January 10, 2008

DANA C. HOWARD, PLAINTIFF,
v.
MORGAN STANLEY, DEFENDANT.

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

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

This matter is before the Court on Defendant Morgan Stanley's Motion for Clarification of the Court's Orders Compelling Arbitration and Setting Date for Final Pre-Trial (Doc. 34). The Defendant believes the Court's Orders are inconsistent with one another. The Court GRANTS the Motion and clarifies as follows.

April 11, 2007, the Court entered an Order compelling arbitration and staying proceedings until such arbitration has been had in accordance with the terms of the agreement, because the Court found that the issue was referable to arbitration and the party applying for the stay (Morgan Stanley) was not in default in proceeding with arbitration. See 9 U.S.C § 3; Gilmer v. Interstate/Johnson Lane Corp., 500 U.S. 20, 25 (1991). At no time did the Court dismiss the instant action or find that it lacked jurisdiction over it.

Since the entry of the Court's order compelling arbitration, the Court has ordered periodic status reports. The Court was not entirely satisfied with the progress evinced by the status reports. In accordance with Gilmer and the Court's inherent authority to manage its docket, see In re Bluestein & Co., 68 F.3d 1022, 1025 (7th Cir. 1995), the Court set a final pre-trial date of February 22, 2008, and a bench trial date of March 3, 2008. The parties have been ordered to submit a status report on or before January 28, 2008. If the Court is satisfied that the parties are not in default in proceeding with the arbitration, it will look favorably on a motion to continue the above dates. However, as the matter stands, the Court sees no inconsistency in its Orders. Both parties are ordered to comply with both Orders.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

J. PHIL GILBERT DISTRICT JUDGE

20080110

© 1992-2008 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.