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.

Sparacino v. Shepherd Communications, Inc.

United States District Court, W.D. Kentucky, Louisville Division

February 12, 2015

JEREMY SPARACINO and RONNIE SPATE, on behalf of THEMSELVES and All Others Similarly Situated, PLAINTIFFS,
v.
SHEPHERD COMMUNICATIONS, INC., TIME WARNER CABLE MIDWEST, LLC, INSIGHT COMMUNICATIONS COMPANY, L.P., and ERIC SHEPHERD, DEFENDANTS

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

COLIN H. LINDSAY, District Judge.

This matter comes before the Court on the parties' Joint Motion to Stay Litigation and Toll Claims (the "Joint Motion") (DN 111). The parties have proposed that the Court enter an agreed order (the "Proposed Order") (DN 111-1) staying the action and tolling the applicable statutes of limitations. For the following reasons, the Joint Motion is SUSTAINED IN PART and OVERRULED IN PART.

Background

The Joint Motion has two components. First, the parties seek a stay of the litigation from the date of filing the Joint Motion, February 2, 2015, until April 20, 2015. The purpose of the proposed stay is "to provide adequate time for the parties to engage in limited discovery and to mediate this matter on April 13, 2015[.]" (DN 111, p. 1.) The parties agree that, should a stay be imposed, any party may move to lift or prolong the stay depending on the status of settlement discussions.

Second, the parties have moved the Court for an order tolling the applicable statutes of limitations for the same period of time that the matter is stayed. The parties ask that the statutes of limitations be tolled with respect to all claims asserted by "Plaintiffs and potential opt-in Plaintiffs, " as well as "claims asserted in this lawsuit by former plaintiffs and opt-in plaintiffs whom this Court previously compelled to arbitration." (DN 111, pp. 1-2.)

The Proposed Order consists of five parts:

1. The action would be stayed until April 20, 2015. At the conclusion of the stay, the parties would be required to notify the Court as to the status of the litigation and propose a schedule as to how the matter should proceed, including a deadline for the defendants to respond to the Second Amended Complaint (DN 108);[1]
2. During the period in which the case is stayed, if any party were to conclude that settlement negotiations were no longer productive, the party would be permitted to move the Court to lift the stay and schedule a case management conference;
3. During the period in which the case is stayed, if the parties believe additional time will facilitate settlement, then the parties would be permitted to jointly move for an extension of the stay;
4. The statute of limitations on all claims of all plaintiffs and potential plaintiffs who elect to opt into the class would be tolled during the same period that the matter is stayed; and
5. The statute of limitations on all claims of former plaintiffs whom the Court previously compelled to arbitration would also be tolled during the same period that the matter is stayed.

( See DN 111-1, pp. 1-2.)

Discussion

The components of the Proposed Order can be divided into two categories. As enumerated in the Proposed Order and restated above, Items 1, 2, and 3 relate to the proposed stay, and Items 4 and 5 relate ...


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.