Brennan et al v. Brennan et al, No. 2:2013cv02491 - Document 104 (E.D. La. 2013)
Court Description: ORDER AND REASONS dismissing as moot 96 Motion to Stay Disqualification Orders. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 6/7/2013. (tsf)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Brennan et al v. Brennan et al Doc. 104 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA EDWARD TUCK COLBERT, et al., Plaintiffs CIVIL ACTION VERSUS No. 12-2442 OWEN BRENNAN, et al., Defendants SECTION “E” Related Case: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA THEODORE BRENNAN, et al., Plaintiffs CIVIL ACTION VERSUS No. 13-2491 OWEN E. BRENNAN, et al., Defendants SECTION “E” ORDER AND REASONS On May 6, 2013, the Court disqualified the law firm of Stone Pigman Walther Wittmann, LLC (“Stone Pigman”) as counsel for Brennan's, Inc. in Civil Action No. 13-2491 and “any matter consolidated [t]herewith.”1 On May 31, 2013, the Court issued an order clarifying the May 6, 2013 Order.2 Brennan’s, Inc., Theodore Brennan (“Ted”), and Bridget Brennan Tyrrell (“Bridget”), all plaintiffs in Civil Action No. 13-2491,3 petitioned the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit for a Writ of Mandamus regarding the May 6, 1 Civil Action No. 13-2491, R. Doc. 30. 2 See Civil Action 13-2491, R. Doc. 92; see also Civil Action No. 13-2491, R. Doc. 86. 3 Brennan’s, Inc. is also a defendant in Civil Action No. 12-2442. Ted and Bridget are not parties to Civil Action No. 12-2442. 1 Dockets.Justia.com 2013 Order and the May 31, 2013 Order. On June 6, 2013, the Fifth Circuit ruled on the pending Writ of Mandamus. As a result, the motions filed by Ted and Bridget requesting the Court to stay its disqualification orders pending the petition for writ of mandamus4 are moot. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the motions to stay be and hereby are DISMISSED AS MOOT. 7th New Orleans, Louisiana, this ____ day of June, 2013. _____________________________ SUSIE MORGAN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 4 See Civil Action No. 12-2442, R. Doc. 100; see also Civil Action No. 13-2491, R. Doc. 96. 2
]]>
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.
