Poe v. Union Pacific Railroad Company, No. 3:2010cv00043 - Document 26 (S.D. Tex. 2010)

Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER summarily denying 14 Motion to Transfer Case, without prejudice to it being reurged, without refiling, if this cause remains on the active docket of the Court following Judge Hoyt's resolution of Union Pacific's counterclaim.(Signed by Magistrate Judge John R Froeschner) Parties notified.(sanderson, )

Download PDF
Poe v. Union Pacific Railroad Company Doc. 26 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS GALVESTON DIVISION JIMMIE POE V. UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY § § § § § CIVIL ACTION NO. G-10-043 OPINION AND ORDER On May 18, 2010, the Honorable Kenneth M. Hoyt, United States District Judge, referred this case to this Court to conduct all pretrial proceedings. On September 23, 2010, Defendant, Union Pacific Railroad Company, filed its Motion to Transfer Venue in this case to the Houston Division. That Motion is now ripe for disposition. However, on October 13, 2010, Union Pacific was granted leave, by this Court, to file its “Counterclaim to Enforce Settlement.” Thereafter, on October 20, 2010, the Parties appeared at a Hearing before Judge Hoyt at which he ordered them to “jointly provide the documents and discovery necessary for the Court to address the defendant’s counterclaim on or before December 15, 2010.” Since it appears, and counsel have confirmed through a telephone conference with this Court on November 1, 2010, that Judge Hoyt intends to resolve Union Pacific’s counterclaim, it seems inappropriate, at the present time, to decide the Motion to Transfer Venue on the merits. It is, therefore, ORDERED that Union Pacific’s Motion to Transfer Venue (Instrument no. 14) is SUMMARILY DENIED, without prejudice to it being reurged, without refiling, if this cause remains on the active docket of the Court following Judge Hoyt’s resolution of Union Pacific’s counterclaim. DONE at Galveston, Texas, this 2nd day of November, 2010. Dockets.Justia.com

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.