Cobb et al v. Ramey Motors, Inc. et al, No. 1:2007cv00280 - Document 43 (S.D.W. Va. 2010)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER granting 42 the parties' joint MOTION to Stay and staying proceedings in this matter pending notification by the parties that they are prepared to proceed to trial. The court further denies as moot 41 the parties ' joint MOTION to Continue. The Clerk is directed to remove this action from the court's active docket pending further order by the court. Signed by Senior Judge David A. Faber on 4/7/2010. (cc: counsel of record) (arb) Modified on 4/7/2010 to correct minor typo (mjp).
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA AT BLUEFIELD JAMES W. COBB and SHERYL D. COBB, Plaintiffs, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:07-0280 RAMEY MOTORS, INC., et al., Defendants. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Pending before the court is the parties joint motion to stay proceedings in this matter, which relates to the sale and purchase of a Toyota dealership. (Doc. No. 42.) In support thereof, the parties state that, [i]n light of the current and on going adverse publicity surrounding Toyota, the announced recall of numerous Toyota automobiles, and the continuing public disclosures regarding the performance of Toyota automobiles and possible effect these disclosures may have on the economic value of Toyota s dealerships, as well as the perception of potential jurors who may be asked to hear this case, the parties jointly seek a stay [of] further proceedings in this matter. (Id. at 1.) In Landis v. North American Co., the United States Supreme Court explained that the power to stay proceedings is incidental to the power inherent in every court to control the disposition of the causes on its docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants. How this can best be done calls for the exercise of judgment, which must weigh competing interests and maintain an even balance. Landis v. North Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254-55 (1936). The court believes that the pendency of the issues raised by the parties justifies a temporary stay in this matter. As such, the court hereby GRANTS the motion to stay (Doc. No. 42) and STAYS proceedings in this matter pending notification by the parties that they are prepared to proceed to trial. The court further DENIES as MOOT the parties joint motion to continue. (Doc. No. 41.) The Clerk is directed to forward a copy of this Memorandum Opinion and Order to all counsel of record and to remove this action from the court s active docket pending further order by the court. It is SO ORDERED this 7th day of April, 2010. ENTER: David A. Faber Senior United States District Judge -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.
