Huffman v. Patriot Coal Corp. et al, No. 2:2014cv15598 - Document 31 (S.D.W. Va. 2014)

Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER granting plaintiff's 28 MOTION to Stay Proceedings Pending Ruling on Plaintiff's Motion to Remand with the exception as more fully set forth herein; the deadlines in the case are stayed pending resolution of the plaintif f's motion to remand; to the extent plaintiff's 27 MOTION to Stay seeks to delay a ruling on the motion to dismiss Winchester LLC, Clyde McComas, and Mark E. George, it is denied; to the extent plaintiffs first motion to stay seeks extended time to file service, the motion remains under consideration by the court. Signed by Judge John T. Copenhaver, Jr. on 10/10/2014. (cc: attys; any unrepresented party) (tmh)

Download PDF
Huffman v. Patriot Coal Corp. et al Doc. 31 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA AT CHARLESTON HEATH HUFFMAN, Plaintiff, v. Civil Action No. 2:14-15598 PATRIOT COAL CORP., a Missouri Corporation licensed to do business in, and doing business in West Virginia, and WINCHESTER LLC, a West Virginia Corporation, and REMINGTON, LLC, a West Virginia Corporation, and CLYDE MCCOMAS and MARK E. GEORGE, in their individual capacity, Defendants. OPINION AND ORDER Pending before the court are plaintiff s motions to stay, the first filed October 6, 2014 and the second filed October 9, 2014. (ECF-27), (ECF-28). Plaintiff s first motion asks the court to delay ruling upon the defendants motion, filed September 24, 2014, seeking the dismissal of defendants Winchester LLC, Clyde McComas, and Mark E. George because they were not properly served with process, see (ECF-25). The plaintiff s first motion to stay also asks the court to extend the time to serve those defendants. Plaintiff s second motion to stay asks the court to stay all proceedings and deadlines until the court rules on Dockets.Justia.com plaintiff s motion to remand, (ECF-7), filed May 8, 2014, which is currently under consideration by the court. The defendants do not oppose this requested stay, except to the extent it would prevent a ruling on the motion to dismiss defendants Winchester LLC, Clyde McComas, and Mark E. George. Def. Resp. in Opp n to Mot. to Stay, (ECF-29). As the parties are in agreement and good cause has been shown, the court determines that it is proper to grant the stay requested in plaintiff s second motion, staying all deadlines in this case while the motion to remand is pending, with one exception. Litigation shall proceed on the issues raised in the defendants motion to dismiss Winchester LLC, Clyde McComas, and Mark E. George. The defendants may file a reply to plaintiff s response on the schedule provided for in the local rules of civil procedure. See LR. Civ. P. 7.1(a)(7). Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that plaintiff s second motion to stay, (ECF-28), is, with the reservation noted, granted, and as outlined above, the deadlines in this case are hereby stayed pending resolution of the plaintiff s motion to remand. It is further ORDERED that, to the extent plaintiff s first motion to stay, (ECF-27), seeks to delay a ruling on the motion to dismiss Winchester LLC, Clyde McComas, and Mark E. George, it is denied. To the extent plaintiff s first motion to stay seeks extended time to file service, the motion remains under consideration by the court. ENTER: October 10, 2014 John T. Copenhaver, Jr. United States District Judge

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.