TaubmanSucks.com WillowBendSucks.com WillowBendMallSucks.com ShopsAtWillowBendSucks.com TheShopsAtWillowBendSucks.com GiffordKrassGrohSprinkleSucks.com

[ Home Page | Condensed Version | The Movie | News | Blogs | Feedback / Mail List ]

Act 109: Our Motion to Stay the Trial is Granted

As you may recall, we recently asked Judge Zatkoff to delay the trial until the Court of Appeals has had a chance to rule on our appeal of the injunctions and the issue of personal jurisdiction. Taubman "concurred" in our motion, which simply means that they've indicated to the judge that they don't have any problem with delaying the trial. And today, on November 14, 2002, Judge Zatkoff agreed to delay the trial. The immediate practical ramification of this decision is that there is likely to be a pronounced lull in activities related to this case until after we hear from the Court of Appeals. It'll be nice to have a break from all the legal maneuvering, and it will certainly be pleasant not to have to listen to any additional vituperation from Taubman's lawyers during the holiday season. Of course, there's no way to anticipate the timing of the deliberations of the Court of Appeals, we could get a ruling from them tomorrow or we could hear nothing but silence from them until next year. Stay tuned. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION THE TAUBMAN COMPANY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, Plaintiff, v. WEBFEATS and HENRY MISHKOFF, Defendants. CASE NO. 01-72987 HON. LAWRENCE P. ZATKOFF ORDER This matter is before the Court on Defendants' Motion to Stay Trial. Plaintiff's concur in the motion. The Court reviewed the materials submitted. Plaintiff filed its original complaint on August 7, 2001, and filed a motion for a preliminary injunction on September 26, 2001. On October 11, 2001, the Court granted Plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction. On October 16, 2001, Plaintiff filed a motion for an expanded preliminary injunction. On November 13, 2001, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. On December 7, 2001, the Court denied Defendants' motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, and granted Plaintiff's motion for an expanded preliminary injunction. Defendants appealed both the original and expanded preliminary injunctions. Presently, the Court has before it motions for summary judgment filed by both Plaintiff and Defendants. In addition, a final pretrial conference is currently scheduled for December 18, 2002, and trial is set for the trailing docket in January 2003. Defendants request that the Court refrain from ruling on any of the summary judgment motions, and stay the final pretrial conference, as well as the trial, until after the appeal is resolved. It recently came to the Court's attention that in addition to challenging the preliminary injunctions on appeal, Defendants are challenging the Court's ruling on the issue of personal jurisdiction. The filing of an appeal typically divests a district court of jurisdiction to hear a matter. See Griggs v. Provident Consumer Disc. Co., 459 U.S. 56 (1982). The district court may proceed on a matter, however, if a party is appealing an order either granting or denying a preliminary injunction. See 20 JAMES WM. MOORE ET AL., MOORE'S FEDERAL PRACTICE, § 303.32(2)(b)(v). Because it is now apparent to the Court that Defendants are not only challenging the preliminary injunction, but are challenging the Court's ruling on the personal jurisdiction issue as well, the Court finds that it is divested of jurisdiction pending the appeal. Therefore, Defendants' Motion to Stay Trial is GRANTED. The Court HEREBY ORDERS that all proceedings in this matter shall be stayed pending the resolution of the appeal. IT IS SO ORDERED. Date: 14 NOV 2002 LAWRENCE P. ZATKOFF CHIEF UNITED STATES DITRICT JUDGE View the Original Order (in a separate window)

©2002-2003 Hank Mishkoff
All rights reserved.