COX et al v. CA HOLDING INC. et al
| ROBERT BROWN, LUCINDA COX, DEVIN HARLEY and MARTY MILLS |
| CA HOLDING INC., CACH LLC, CACH OF NJ LLC, JOHN DOES, THOMAS G. GOOD, DAMON S. JUDD, MARK M. KING, KRG CAPITAL MANAGEMENT LP, CHRISTOPHER J. LANE, PAUL A. LARKINS, PHILLIP SCOTT LOWERY, JAMES B. RICHARDSON, JR., L. HEATH SAMPSON, SQUARETWO FINANCIAL CORPORATION and BRIAN W. TUITE |
| 1:2013cv01754 |
| November 4, 2013 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of Indiana |
| Indianapolis Office |
| Mark J. Dinsmore |
| Jane Magnus-Stinson |
| Racketeer/Corrupt Organization |
| 15 U.S.C. ยง 1692 Fair Debt Collection Act |
| Plaintiff |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
89
ORDER. For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS IN PART Defendants' 34 Joint Motion to Compel Arbitration and Stay Proceedings Pending the Completion of Arbitration as to claims brought by Mr. Hartley. Claims brought by Mr. Hartley wil l be STAYED pending completion of arbitration. The parties shall file a Report with the Court within seven days of completion of Mr. Hartley's arbitration. The Court DENIES IN PART DUE TO FACTUAL DISPUTES the motion as to claims brought by M s. Cox, Mr. Mills, and Mr. Brown. The issue of whether Defendants are entitled to arbitrate claims brought by Ms. Cox, Mr. Mills, and Mr. Brown will be determined in a summary trial. The Court requests that the Magistrate Judge confer with the par ties as soon as practicable to set a schedule for expedited discovery on the issue of arbitrability (if any additional discovery is needed) and for trial on that issue, and to discuss whether Plaintiffs demand a jury for trial on the issue of arbi trability. Additionally, after reviewing the pending motion and noting the fact-specific nature of each Plaintiff's claims and the fact that different cardholder agreements govern each Plaintiff's account and, in most cases, different a greements govern CACH's acquisition of rights to those accounts, the Court ORDERS Plaintiffs to SHOW CAUSE by February 27, 2015 why the Plaintiffs' claims should be joined in this single lawsuit. In responding to the Order to Show Cause, Plaintiffs must address Fed. R. Civ. P. 20, which provides that "[p]ersons may join in one action as plaintiffs if: (A) they assert any right to relief jointly, severally, or in the alternative with respect to or arising out of the same trans action, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences; and (B) any question of law or fact common to all plaintiffs will arise in the action." Plaintiffs must also address how staying the claims of Mr. Hartley, and allowing the claims of Ms. Cox, Mr. Mills, and Mr. Brown to proceed to trial on the issue of arbitrability, affects the propriety of joinder. Finally, the Court DISMISSES Defendants John Does 1-50 from this lawsuit, and the Clerk is directed to terminate them as parties. SEE ORDER. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 2/13/2015. (BGT)
|
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the Indiana Southern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
