Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-arwd-5_06-cv-05176/USCOURTS-arwd-5_06-cv-05176-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal

---

AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

FAYETTEVILLE DIVISION

EDDIE DICKARD, individually and on 

behalf of all others similarly situated PLAINTIFF

 

v. Case No. 06-5176

OKLAHOMA MANAGEMENT 

SERVICES FOR PHYSICIANS, LLC,

ORTHOPEDIC MANAGEMENT

SERVICES, LLC DEFENDANTS

ORDER

This matter is before the Court on Defendants’ motion to

stay class certification pending the Court’s ruling on

Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (Doc. 52) and

supporting documents (Docs 60 and 75) and Plaintiff’s response

(Doc. 70-1). For the reasons set forth herein, Defendants’

motion is GRANTED. Plaintiff’s motion for class certification

is stayed pending a ruling on Defendants’ motion for summary

judgment.

Article III of the Constitution only allows federal courts

to adjudicate actual, ongoing cases or controversies. Potter v.

Norwest Mortg., Inc., 329 F.3d 608, 612 (8th Cir. 2003) citing

Deakins v. Monaghan, 484 U.S. 193, 199 (1988). The Supreme

Court has stated, “Embodied in the ‘cases or controversies’

requirement is the concept of mootness, which ‘defines

constitutionally minimal conditions for the invocation of

Case 5:06-cv-05176-RTD Document 85 Filed 09/17/07 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

2

federal judicial power.’” Franks v. Bowman Transportation Co.,

424 U.S. 747, 754 (1976). “Simply stated, a case is moot when

the issues presented are no longer ‘live’ or the parties lack a

legally cognizable interest in the outcome.” Powell v.

McCormack, 395 U.S. 486, 496 (1969). Article III requires

parties to have a continuing “personal stake in the outcome” of

the lawsuit. Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 204 (1962). This

“personal stake” requirement “serves primarily the purpose of

assuring that federal courts are presented with disputes they

are capable of resolving.” Potter, supra citing United States

Parole Comm’n v. Geraghty, 445 U.S. 388, 397 (1980).

In the present matter, Plaintiff is seeking certification

of a class pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23.

(Doc. 47-1). Defendants have filed a motion for summary

judgment (Doc. 56) seeking summary judgment on all claims. If

this Court grants summary judgment, it is apparent that

Plaintiff would not have a “continuing personal stake in the

outcome of the lawsuit” and therefore, the issue of class

certification would be moot.

For the reasons reflected above, Defendants’ motion to stay

class certification is GRANTED and Plaintiff’s motion for class

certification is stayed pending a ruling on the motion for

summary judgment.

Case 5:06-cv-05176-RTD Document 85 Filed 09/17/07 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

3

IT IS SO ORDERED this 17th day of September, 2007.

 /s/ Robert T. Dawson 

Honorable Robert T. Dawson

United States District Judge 

Case 5:06-cv-05176-RTD Document 85 Filed 09/17/07 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: <pageID>