Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Koch v. Compucredit Corp.

June 19, 2007

MARY KOCH, ON BEHALF OF HERSELF AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED PLAINTIFF
v.
COMPUCREDIT CORPORATION, JEFFERSON CAPITAL, LLC, AND J. A. CAMBECE LAW OFFICE, P.C. DEFENDANTS



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Wm. R. Wilson, Jr. United States District Judge

ORDER

Pending are Defendants' Motions for a Stay,*fn1 and to Extend Time for Rule 26 Deadlines.*fn2 Plaintiff has responded.*fn3

Defendants filed an interlocutory appeal challenging the March 29, 2007 Order*fn4 that denied Defendants' Motion to Dismiss and to Compel Arbitration.*fn5 Defendants ask that all further proceedings be stayed until the arbitration issue is resolved by the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. Plaintiff argues that discovery should go forward during the pendency of this appeal.

In support of the motions, Defendants cite a recent decision from this District, Enderlin v. XM Satellite Radio Holding, et al.*fn6 Plaintiff argues that the Enderlin decision is inconsistent with the Supreme Court's holding in Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital v. Mercury Construction,*fn7 and asserts that an interlocutory appeal does not divest a district court of jurisdiction. Plaintiff further maintains that the arbitration issue can be severed from the underlying claims so that the district court can continue to exercise authority over the case.

I agree with the Enderlin ruling that an interlocutory appeal divests the district court of jurisdiction.*fn8 In this ruling, the court explained that the divestiture rule serves two important interests: (1) it promotes judicial economy when it "'spares a trial court from considering and ruling on questions that possibly will be mooted by the decision of the court of appeals'"; and (2) it promotes fairness to the parties by preventing a '"two front war."'*fn9

The motion to stay in the Enderlin case was granted so the court "could control its docket, conserve judicial resources and provide for a just determination."*fn10 For the same reasons, Defendants' Motions (Doc. Nos. 34, 42, 45) to Stay and to Extend Deadlines are GRANTED.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 19th day of ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.