Rohn, Lee J. v. Cingular Wireless, LLC
DISTRICT COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST. CROIX 5 LEE J. ROHN, as representative of a class, 5 5 Plaintiff, 5 2007-CV-0080 v. 5 5 AT & T MOBILITY, LLC, formerly known as 5 Cingular Wireless, LLC, SPRINT NEXTEL, 5 INNOVATIVE WIRELESS, CENTENNIAL 5 DE PR, and INNOVATIVE TELEPHONE 5 COMPANY, 5 5 Defendants. 5 __________________________________________5 TO: Lee J. Rohn, Esq. Henry L. Feuerzeig, Esq. Douglas C. Beach, Esq. Matthew J. Duensing, Esq. Kevin A. Rames, Esq. ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT AT&T MOBILITY[,]LLC’S MOTION TO STAY THIS MATTER came before the Court upon Defendant AT&T Mobility[,] LLC’s Motion to Stay Its Obligation to Answer or Otherwise Respond to the Third Amended Complaint Pending Resolution of Its Motion to Compel Arbitration (Docket No. 70). The time for filing a response has expired. Said Defendant has filed a motion to compel arbitration, which, if granted, would effectively resolve the claims against said Defendant in this matter as far as this Court is Case: 1:07-cv-00080-CVG-GWC Document #: 101 Filed: 10/03/08 Page 1 of 2 Rohn v. …
Download the original document · Plain text (TXT) · Browse the archive · How this archive works
Original source: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-vid-1_07-cv-00080/pdf/USCOURTS-vid-1_07-cv-00080-0.pdf
SHA-256 5641b33055622a8c70c238c1c301beaae19124f0cc02cab42533c96f5258f49a
Re-using this document
two independent grounds: a work of the United States Government under 17 USC 105, AND a judicial opinion, which is an edict of government and uncopyrightable by anyone including the court that wrote it
Our description, tagging, arrangement, extracted text and machine transcripts are released under CC0 1.0. We assert nothing about the document itself.
Archive identifier LF-5641b3305562
Document text
DISTRICT COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST. CROIX 5 LEE J. ROHN, as representative of a class, 5 5 Plaintiff, 5 2007-CV-0080 v. 5 5 AT & T MOBILITY, LLC, formerly known as 5 Cingular Wireless, LLC, SPRINT NEXTEL, 5 INNOVATIVE WIRELESS, CENTENNIAL 5 DE PR, and INNOVATIVE TELEPHONE 5 COMPANY, 5 5 Defendants. 5 __________________________________________5 TO: Lee J. Rohn, Esq. Henry L. Feuerzeig, Esq. Douglas C. Beach, Esq. Matthew J. Duensing, Esq. Kevin A. Rames, Esq. ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT AT&T MOBILITY[,]LLC’S MOTION TO STAY THIS MATTER came before the Court upon Defendant AT&T Mobility[,] LLC’s Motion to Stay Its Obligation to Answer or Otherwise Respond to the Third Amended Complaint Pending Resolution of Its Motion to Compel Arbitration (Docket No. 70). The time for filing a response has expired. Said Defendant has filed a motion to compel arbitration, which, if granted, would effectively resolve the claims against said Defendant in this matter as far as this Court is Case: 1:07-cv-00080-CVG-GWC Document #: 101 Filed: 10/03/08 Page 1 of 2 Rohn v. AT&T Mobility, LLC 2007-CV-0080 Order Granting Defendant AT&T Mobility[,] LLC’s Motion to Stay concerned. Moreover, other Defendants have filed motions to dismiss, which, if granted, would resolve the claims against those Defendants. Given the procedural posture of this matter, the Court will grant the said motion and, in addition, stay all discovery until the resolution of the pending dispositive motions or until further order of this Court.1 Being advised in the premises and upon due consideration thereof, it is now hereby ORDERED: 1. Defendant AT&T Mobility[,] LLC’s Motion to Stay Its Obligation to Answer or Otherwise Respond to the Third Amended Complaint Pending Resolution of Its Motion to Compel Arbitration (Docket No. 70) is GRANTED. 2. Defendant AT&T Mobility, LLC’s obligation to answer or otherwise respond to the Third Amended Complaint is STAYED pending the Court’s resolution of said Defendant’s Motion to Compel Arbitration. 3. All discovery in this matter is STAYED until further order of this Court. ENTER: Dated: October 3, 2008 /s/ GEORGE W. CANNON, JR. U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE This Court previously has ruled that the mere filing of a motion to compel arbitration does not automatically 1 stay discovery or the obligation to answer or otherwise respond. Case: 1:07-cv-00080-CVG-GWC Document #: 101 Filed: 10/03/08 Page 2 of 2