United States District Court, D. Montana, Billings Division
CARMEN L. McFERRIN, Plaintiff,
UNITED SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, a Foreign Corporation, BISHOP BARRY, a Professional Law Corporation, ANDREW A. GOODE, REBECCA B. AHERNE and PARKER, HEITZ & COSGROVE, PPLC, a Professional Limited Liability Company, Defendants.
ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO STAY
TIMOTHY J. CAVAN United States Magistrate Judge.
before the Court is Plaintiffs Motion to Stay Briefing and
Any Ruling on Defendants' Motions to Dismiss. (Doc. 40.)
Defendants have filed an opposition (Doc. 42), and Plaintiff
has replied. (Doc. 43.) Having considered the parties'
submissions, Plaintiffs motion is GRANTED in part, as set
September 26, 2016, this action was removed to the United
States District Court for the District of Montana by
Defendant Parker, Heitz & Cosgrove
("Parker"). (Doc. 1.) Subsequently, Plaintiff filed
two separate Motions to Remand (Docs. 4 and 21), Defendant
Parker filed a Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim
(Doc. 6), Defendants Bishop Barry, Goode, and Aherne filed a
Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction and Failure to
State a Claim (Doc. 35), and Defendant USIC filed a Motion to
Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim. (Doc. 38.) Defendants
have also filed a Motion for Leave to file a Sur-Reply Brief
relating to Plaintiffs second Motion to Remand (Doc. 32), and
Defendant Parker filed a Motion for Judicial Notice that is
associated with its Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a
Claim. (Doc. 8.)
Plaintiff s Motions to Remand, Defendant Parker's Motion
to Dismiss, and the related Motion for Judicial Notice, are
fully briefed and ripe for the Court's review.
(See Docs. 16, 20, 24, 27, 30, 31, 19, and 29.)
Briefing is not complete on Defendants Bishop Barry, Goode,
and Aherne's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction
and Failure to State a Claim, Defendant USIC's Motion to
Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim, or Defendants'
Motion to file a Sur-Reply.
requests the Court stay all outstanding briefing and ruling
on any issues other than remand. (Doc. 40, 41.) Defendants
concede that the Court should decide the Motions to Remand
first, but argue the Court should allow briefing to proceed
on their Motions to Dismiss and Motion to File a Sur-Reply.
(Doc. 42.) Defendants also argue the Court should decide
Defendant Bishop Barry, Goode, and Aherne's Motion to
Dismiss, as well as Defendant Parker's Motion for
Judicial Notice, and their Motion to File a Sur-Reply,
because those motions do not address the merits. (Doc. 42.)
Court declines to enter a formal stay of any ruling on the
fully briefed motions in this action. Nevertheless, the Court
agrees with the parties that the Motions to Remand should be
addressed first, and thereupon finds good cause to suspend
briefing on Defendants Bishop Barry, Goode, and Aherne's
Motion to Dismiss and Defendant USIC's Motion to Dismiss,
until after the Motions to Remand are decided. The Court
finds suspending completion of briefing on these two motions
promotes the interests of judicial economy, as well as
conserves the parties' resources. Further, the Court does
not find Defendants will be prejudiced by temporarily
delaying briefing on the motions until after the Court has
resolved whether this action should be remanded to state
regard to Defendants' Motion to File a Sur-Reply,
however, the Court will require briefing to proceed because
the motion relates to Plaintiffs second Motion to Remand. The
Court notes that Plaintiff failed to oppose Defendants'
Motion to File a Sur-Reply within the time set forth by the
Local Rules. Typically, this failure would be deemed an
admission that the motion is well-taken. See L.R.
7.1 (d)(l)(B)(ii). But given that Plaintiff filed the instant
Motion to Stay prior to her opposition deadline, the Court
finds good cause to briefly extend the time for Plaintiff to
IT IS ORDERED:
further briefing on Defendants Bishop Barry, Goode, and
Aherne's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 35), or Defendant
USIC's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 38), shall be required
until after the Court issues a ruling on Plaintiffs Motions
to Remand. The Court will issue a briefing schedule for the
Motions to Dismiss following resolution of the Motions to
Remand, if necessary.
Plaintiff wishes to oppose Defendants' Motion to File a
Sur-Reply Brief relating to Plaintiffs second Motion to
Remand (Doc. 32), the opposition shall be filed no later than
January 6, 2017. Defendants may file a Reply by January 13,
Court will address the fully briefed motions in this action
in due course.
 On October 12, 2016 Defendants United
Specialty Insurance Company ("USIC"), Bishop Barry,
Andrew A. Goode ("Goode"), and Rebecca B. Aherne
("Aherne") filed a Notice of Removal and Joinder in
Parker's Notice of ...