Erdman v. Falkner

S.D. Alabama

Erdman v. Falkner

District Court, S.D. Alabama·Decided September 5, 2019·No. 1:18-cv-00414·Unknown

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA SOUTHERN DIVISION

FRANKIE WENDELL ERDMAN, JR., : : Plaintiff, : : vs. : CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:18-cv-414-TFM-C : PETER T. FALKNER, et al., : : Defendants. :

INGEN1, LLC, et al., : : Plaintiffs, : : vs. : CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:19-cv-183-TFM-C : FRANKIE WENDELL ERDMAN, JR., : : Defendant. :

ORDER Pending before the Court is the parties’ Joint Motion to Place Case on Administrative Docket. Doc. 59, filed August 30, 2019. The parties request the Court stay this matter until November 21, 2019, and put this matter on the Court’s administrative docket. Id. at 2. In support of they parties’ motion, they state they have resolved this matter, they agree this matter should be placed on the Court’s administrative docket until all of the agreed-upon payments have been completed per the settlement agreement, and they will file a joint stipulation of dismissal with prejudice pursuant Fed. R. Civ. P. 41 after the final payment on or about November 21, 2019. Id. ¶¶ 1-3. “The District Court has broad discretion to stay proceedings as an incident to its power to control its own docket.” Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 706, 117 S. Ct. 1636, 137 L. Ed. 2d 945 (1997); see also Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254-55, 57 S. Ct. 163, 81 L. Ed. 153 (1936) (citations omitted) (“[T]he power to stay proceedings is incidental to the power inherent in every court to control the disposition of causes on its docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants. How this can best be done calls for the exercise of judgment, which

must weigh competing interests and maintain an even balance.”). Since the parties have reached a settlement agreement and the only remaining issue is the completion of payments pursuant to the agreement, the Court finds this matter should be stayed. Accordingly, it is ORDERED as follows: (1) The Joint Motion to Place Case on Administrative Docket (Doc. 59) is hereby GRANTED. (2) This case is STAYED, and the Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to place this case on the administratively closed docket. DONE and ORDERED this the 5th day of September 2019. /s/ Terry F. Moorer TERRY F. MOORER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA SOUTHERN DIVISION

FRANKIE WENDELL ERDMAN, JR., : : Plaintiff, : : vs. : CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:18-cv-414-TFM-C : PETER T. FALKNER, et al., : : Defendants. :

INGEN1, LLC, et al., : : Plaintiffs, : : vs. : CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:19-cv-183-TFM-C : FRANKIE WENDELL ERDMAN, JR., : : Defendant. :

ORDER Pending before the Court is the parties’ Joint Motion to Place Case on Administrative Docket. Doc. 59, filed August 30, 2019. The parties request the Court stay this matter until November 21, 2019, and put this matter on the Court’s administrative docket. Id. at 2. In support of they parties’ motion, they state they have resolved this matter, they agree this matter should be placed on the Court’s administrative docket until all of the agreed-upon payments have been completed per the settlement agreement, and they will file a joint stipulation of dismissal with prejudice pursuant Fed. R. Civ. P. 41 after the final payment on or about November 21, 2019. Id. ¶¶ 1-3. “The District Court has broad discretion to stay proceedings as an incident to its power to control its own docket.” Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 706, 117 S. Ct. 1636, 137 L. Ed. 2d 945 (1997); see also Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254-55, 57 S. Ct. 163, 81 L. Ed. 153 (1936) (citations omitted) (“[T]he power to stay proceedings is incidental to the power inherent in every court to control the disposition of causes on its docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants. How this can best be done calls for the exercise of judgment, which

must weigh competing interests and maintain an even balance.”). Since the parties have reached a settlement agreement and the only remaining issue is the completion of payments pursuant to the agreement, the Court finds this matter should be stayed. Accordingly, it is ORDERED as follows: (1) The Joint Motion to Place Case on Administrative Docket (Doc. 59) is hereby GRANTED. (2) This case is STAYED, and the Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to place this case on the administratively closed docket. DONE and ORDERED this the 5th day of September 2019. /s/ Terry F. Moorer TERRY F. MOORER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Erdman v. Falkner, (S.D. Ala. 2019).

Pincite

Erdman v. Falkner (Erdman v. Falkner) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related