Carter v. Clark Equipment Co.

E.D. Tennessee

Carter v. Clark Equipment Co.

512 F. Supp. 412, 1978 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15400

District Court, E.D. Tennessee·Decided September 21, 1978·No. No. CIV-4-78-18·Published

Opinion

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

NEESE, District Judge.

The defendant Nichols Construction Company moved the Court to dismiss this action, or alternatively, to stay it because of a pending previously-commenced action between the same parties involving the same issues as herein in another district court. A magistrate recommended that such motion be denied in its former alternative, but that it be granted in its latter alternative, and that the plaintiffs be ordered to inform the Court periodically of the status of such federal proceeding and of any final judgment or other disposition thereof. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). A copy of such recommendation was mailed by the clerk to counsel of record herein oh August 30,1978. No timely written objection thereto was served and filed. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

The undersigned judge hereby ACCEPTS such recommendation. Idem. Whether to stay the proceedings herein under the circumstances presented is a matter committed largely to the carefully considered judgment of this Court. Will v. Calvert Fire Ins. Co. (1978), 437 U.S. 655, 662, 98 S.Ct. 2552, 2557, 57 L.Ed.2d 504, 512. In the exercise of its inherent discretion, this action hereby is STAYED pending final disposition of James Boyd Carter, et al., plaintiffs, v. Nichols Construction Company, et al., defendants, civil action no. 78-1853 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana. Landis v. North American Company (1936), 299 U.S. 248, 254-255, 57 S.Ct. 163, 165-166, 81 L.Ed. 153, 158 (headnote 1). The motion of the aforenamed defendant, and the similar motion of the defendant Clark Equipment Company,

Footnotes

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

NEESE, District Judge.

The defendant Nichols Construction Company moved the Court to dismiss this action, or alternatively, to stay it because of a pending previously-commenced action between the same parties involving the same issues as herein in another district court. A magistrate recommended that such motion be denied in its former alternative, but that it be granted in its latter alternative, and that the plaintiffs be ordered to inform the Court periodically of the status of such federal proceeding and of any final judgment or other disposition thereof. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). A copy of such recommendation was mailed by the clerk to counsel of record herein oh August 30,1978. No timely written objection thereto was served and filed. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

The undersigned judge hereby ACCEPTS such recommendation. Idem. Whether to stay the proceedings herein under the circumstances presented is a matter committed largely to the carefully considered judgment of this Court. Will v. Calvert Fire Ins. Co. (1978), 437 U.S. 655, 662, 98 S.Ct. 2552, 2557, 57 L.Ed.2d 504, 512. In the exercise of its inherent discretion, this action hereby is STAYED pending final disposition of James Boyd Carter, et al., plaintiffs, v. Nichols Construction Company, et al., defendants, civil action no. 78-1853 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana. Landis v. North American Company (1936), 299 U.S. 248, 254-255, 57 S.Ct. 163, 165-166, 81 L.Ed. 153, 158 (headnote 1). The motion of the aforenamed defendant, and the similar motion of the defendant Clark Equipment Company,

Footnotes

Carter v. Clark Equipment Co., 512 F. Supp. 412, 1978 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15400 (E.D. Tenn. 1978).

Pincite

512 F. Supp. 412 (Carter v. Clark Equipment Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Footnotes

Related