Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-01370/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-01370-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 710
Nature of Suit: Fair Labor Standards Act
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

KELLER ROHRBACK, P.L.C.

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

NATIONAL BANK PLAZA, SUITE 900 

3101 NORTH CENTRAL AVENUE

PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85012-2600 

TEL. (602) 248-0088 FAX (602) 248-2822 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

WO 

 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

KEVIN BOLAND, et al. 

 Plaintiffs, 

v. 

APARTMENT INVESTMENT AND 

MANAGEMENT COMPANY, AIMCO 

PROPERTIES, L.P., NHP MANAGEMENT 

COMPANY, and AIMCO/BETHESDA 

HOLDINGS, INC., 

 Defendants. 

No. CV07-1370-PHX-JAT

ORDER 

 Plaintiffs have filed a Motion to Stay Proceedings Pending a Decision by 

the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (Doc. #23) and a Motion for 

Expedited Treatment of the motion to stay (Doc. #25). The Defendants object to 

the stay. The Court now rules on the motions. 

 On November 15, 2007, Plaintiffs filed a motion with the Judicial Panel on 

Multidistrict Litigation (the “MDL Panel”) requesting the transfer of this case and 

twenty-one other cases to the United States District Court for the District of 

Case 2:07-cv-01370-JAT Document 28 Filed 12/14/07 Page 1 of 2
KELLER ROHRBACK, P.L.C.

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

NATIONAL BANK PLAZA, SUITE 900 

3101 NORTH CENTRAL AVENUE

PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85012-2600 

TEL. (602) 248-0088 FAX (602) 248-2822 

2 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

Columbia for consolidated or coordinated pretrial proceedings. Section 1407 of 

Title 28 of the United States Code authorizes the MDL Panel to transfer actions 

filed in more than one district involving one or more common questions of fact to 

a single court for coordinated or consolidated proceedings. A district court 

previously has denied class certification to Plaintiffs. 

 The Plaintiffs anticipate that the MDL Panel will rule on their motion at 

either the Panel’s January or March hearing. The Court already has held a Rule 16 

scheduling conference in this case and has set scheduling deadlines. The Court 

has considered the Plaintiffs arguments regarding judicial economy and efficiency, 

but given the procedural background of this case (as set out in Defendants’ 

response) and the Court’s interest in managing its own calendar, the Court will 

deny the motion to stay. 

 Accordingly, 

 IT IS ORDERED DENYING Plaintiffs’ Motion to Stay Proceedings 

Pending a Decision by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (Doc. #23). 

 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED DENYING Plaintiffs’ Motion to Expedite 

(Doc. #25) as moot. 

 Dated this 14th day of December, 2007. 

Case 2:07-cv-01370-JAT Document 28 Filed 12/14/07 Page 2 of 2