Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alsd-1_07-cv-00576/USCOURTS-alsd-1_07-cv-00576-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 480
Nature of Suit: Consumer Credit
Cause of Action: 15:1601 Truth in Lending

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

CEDRIC ANTHONY, et al., )

 )

Plaintiffs, )

 )

v. ) CIVIL ACTION 07-0576-WS-C

 )

AMERIQUEST MORTGAGE )

COMPANY, )

 )

Defendant. )

ORDER 

This matter is before the Court on the plaintiffs’ motion to stay. (Doc. 7). The

defendant has filed a response, (Doc. 12), and the motion is ripe for resolution. 

Because counsel for both sides are also counsel in Boudin v. Residential

Essentials, LLC, Civ. No. 07-0018-WS-C and Dortch v. Ameriquest Mortgage Company,

Civ. No. 07-0530-WS-B, neither can profess ignorance of the Court’s expectations on

such a motion. Nevertheless, neither side has invested appreciable resources to this issue. 

The plaintiffs simply point to the conditional transfer order and assert without

amplification that ‘[n]o prejudice will result to any party by the granting of the stay.” 

(Doc. 7 at 1). The defendant responds only that the burden is on the plaintiffs to justify a

stay and that judicial economy is not served by delaying ruling on its motion to dismiss

when the plaintiffs’ claims “are clearly time-barred ... on the face of the Complaint.” 

(Doc. 13 at 3). 

The defendant’s argument is curious, given that its motion to dismiss relies, not

just on the complaint, but on 15 exhibits, while the plaintiffs rely on five. (Docs. 6, 12,

14). Moreover, as in Boudin and Dortch, the correct resolution of the motion is far from

obvious and would require the Court to become versed in half a dozen procedural and

substantive issues. Nor is there any suggestion that the issues raised by the parties have

Case 1:07-cv-00576-WS-C Document 15 Filed 10/04/07 Page 1 of 2
-2-

not been, and will not be, addressed by the MDL Court in other transferred cases. The

defendant cannot avoid a stay in such a situation simply by noting, however correctly, the

skeletal nature of the plaintiff’s motion.

For the reasons set forth above, the motion to stay is granted. This action is

stayed pending transfer to the MDL Court or further order of this Court. 

 

 DONE and ORDERED this 4th day of October, 2007.

s/ WILLIAM H. STEELE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-00576-WS-C Document 15 Filed 10/04/07 Page 2 of 2