Krantz et al v. Smith et al
| Walter Krantz and Katharine Krantz |
| Brandon Smith and Jamie Smith |
| 3:2019cv02507 |
| September 6, 2019 |
| US District Court for the District of South Carolina |
| J Michelle Childs |
| Real Property: Other |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1441 |
| Both |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on June 22, 2020. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 13 TEXT ORDER: This matter is before the court pursuant to Plaintiffs' unopposed Motion for Stay of Deadlines (ECF No. #9 , #11 ) seeking "a stay of all deadlines..., to include the filing of their Reply and Answer to Defendants' Answer and Counterclaim, until this [c]ourt has rendered judgment as to Plaintiffs' Motion to Remand filed on September 26, 2019." (Id. at 1 (referencing ECF No. 8).) When considering a motion to stay, the district court should consider three factors: "(1) the interests of judicial economy; (2) hardship and equity to the moving party if the action is not stayed; and (3) potential prejudice to the non-moving party." Johnson v. DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc., No. 3:12-cv-2274, 2012 WL 4538642, at *2 (D.S.C. Oct. 1, 2012) (granting stay pending a transfer of the case to MDL (citation omitted)). In view of these factors, the court is persuaded that a limited stay is warranted in this matter. More specifically, the court observes that if Plaintiffs have filed a meritorious Motion to Remand, judicial economy is best served if the court avoids using its resources on a case that it lacks jurisdiction over. E.g., In re Modafinil Antitrust Litig., 837 F.3d 238, 268 (3d Cir. 2016) ("'Judicial economy' means '[e]fficiency in the operation of the courts and the judicial system; esp[ecially ], the efficient management of litigation so as to minimize duplication of effort and to avoid wasting the judiciary's time and resources.'" (citation omitted)). Moreover, since Plaintiffs' Motion and Defendants' Response in Opposition have already been filed, the court can ensure that the delay in the case will be minimal and should not be prejudicial by expeditiously entering an order resolving the issue. Therefore, upon careful consideration of the entire record as well as the arguments of Plaintiffs' counsel, the court finds that Plaintiffs have demonstrated good cause for granting a stay of this action. Accordingly, the court GRANTS Plaintiffs' Motion for Stay of Deadlines (ECF No. #9 , #11 ) and stays all deadlines in the current Scheduling Order (ECF No. 5) (ECF No. 6) until after the court rules on Plaintiffs' pending Motion to Remand (ECF No. 8) (ECF No. 10). The court further GRANTS Plaintiffs' request that they have twenty-one (21) days from the date the court enters an order as to the Motion to Remand to answer Defendants' counterclaims. Signed by Honorable J Michelle Childs on 10/22/2019.Associated Cases: 3:19-cv-02507-JMC, 3:19-cv-02512-JMC(asni, ) |
| Filing 9 RESPONSE in Opposition re (8 in 3:19-cv-02512-JMC) MOTION to Remand to State Court Response filed by Brandon Smith, Jamie Smith.Reply to Response to Motion due by 10/17/2019 Add an additional 3 days only if served by mail or otherwise allowed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 6. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit Deposition Coversheet, #2 Exhibit Acceptance of Service)Associated Cases: 3:19-cv-02507-JMC, 3:19-cv-02512-JMC(Reeves, Paul) |
| Filing 11 MOTION to Stay re #7 Mediation Order, #4 Answer to Complaint,, Counterclaim, #6 Scheduling Order,, by Katharine Krantz, Walter Krantz. Response to Motion due by 10/10/2019. Add an additional 3 days only if served by mail or otherwise allowed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 6 or Fed. R. Crim. P. 45. No proposed order.(McCabe, Donald) Modified to edit filing date on 10/18/2019 (asni, ). |
| Filing 10 MOTION to Remand to State Court by Katharine Krantz, Walter Krantz. Response to Motion due by 10/10/2019. Add an additional 3 days only if served by mail or otherwise allowed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 6 or Fed. R. Crim. P. 45. (Attachments: #1 Memo in Support, #2 Exhibit Exh A, #3 Exhibit Exh B, #4 Exhibit Exh C, #5 Exhibit Exh D, #6 Exhibit Exh E, #7 Exhibit Exh F)No proposed order.(McCabe, Donald) Modified to edit filing date on 10/18/2019 (asni, ). |
| Filing 7 MEDIATION ORDER Mediation Due by 3/2/2020, Signed by Honorable J Michelle Childs on 9/9/2019. (asni, ) |
| Filing 6 CONFERENCE AND SCHEDULING ORDER Rule 26(f) Conference Deadline 9/30/2019, 26(a) Initial Disclosures due by 10/15/2019, Rule 26 Report due by 10/15/2019, Motions to Amend Pleadings due by 11/25/2019, Plaintiffs ID of Expert Witness due by 12/27/2019, Defendants ID of Expert Witnesses Due by 1/24/2020, Records Custodian Affidavit due by 1/24/2020, Discovery due by 2/24/2020, Motion in Limine due by 5/1/2020, Motions due by 3/9/2020, Rule 26(a)(3) Disclosures due by 5/1/2020, Jury Selection Deadline 6/2/2020, Signed by Honorable J Michelle Childs on 9/9/2019. (asni, ) |
| Filing 5 REPLY by Katharine Krantz, Walter Krantz to #4 Counterclaim. Originally filed in state court on 11/20/2017. (asni, ) |
| Filing 4 ANSWER to Complaint, COUNTERCLAIM, against Katharine Krantz, Walter Krantz by Jamie Smith, Brandon Smith THIRD PARTY COMPLAINT (dismissed).( Filed in State Court 11/13/2017) (Attachments: #1 SOD Dubose as to Third Party Claims, #2 SOD Holler & Coldwell as to Third Party Claims)(asni, ) |
| Filing 3 Local Rule 26.01 Answers to Interrogatories by Brandon Smith, Jamie Smith.Associated Cases: 3:19-cv-02507-JMC, 3:19-cv-02512-JMC. refiled by the clerk to correct the case number. (asni, ) |
| Filing 1 NOTICE OF REMOVAL from Richland County, case number 2017-CP-40-05720. (Filing fee $ 400 receipt number 0420-8653986), filed by Jamie Smith, Brandon Smith. (Attachments: #1 State Court Documents)(asni, ) (Additional attachment(s) added on 9/6/2019: #2 Motion to Consolidate, #3 Order Consolidating Cases) (asni, ). (Additional attachment(s) added on 9/9/2019: #4 notice of withdrawal and substitution) (asni, ). |
Access additional case information on PACER
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 South Carolina 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.
