Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Motions
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Motions

KATHERINE FRANCIS, Plaintiff v. MEAD JOHNSON COMPANY, Defendant.

ORDER

JOHN KANE, Senior District Judge

This matter is currently before me on Defendant's Unopposed Motion to Stay Proceedings (doc. 36). As I anticipated in my Minute Order dated September 16, 2010 (doc. 27), the Defendant has filed a motion to transfer all actions related to the marketing of its Enfamil Lipil products to the Southern District of Indiana for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings. That motion is set for argument on January 27, 2011.

It is apparent that a stay pending resolution of Defendant's motion to transfer will not prejudice either party. Furthermore, it will better conserve the court's and the parties' resources. Accordingly, Defendant's Unopposed Motion to Stay (doc. 36) is GRANTED pending resolution of its Motion for Transfer by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation.

Dated: December 20, 2010

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

FRANCIS v. MEAD JOHNSON COMPANY
(Dec 20, 2010)