Welch v. Louisville & Nashville Railroad

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that “[a] short stay will not prejudice plaintiffs” where the JPML was scheduled to meet later that month and was “likely to resolve [defendant’s transfer] motion promptly”
• concluding a short stay of sixteen days until the JPML would hear argument on the defendant’s motion to transfer would “not prejudice plaintiffs”
• staying a case where a related lawsuit “appear[s] likely to implicate overlapping core facts . . . and legal theories”
• noting “[i]t is common for courts to stay an action pending a transfer decision by the JPML” and granting motion to stay
• granting motion to grant a “short stay” where JPML was scheduled to meet within three weeks “and is likely to resolve [the MDL motion] promptly”
• granting a “short stay” where a JPML hearing was scheduled two weeks after the staying court’s decision, as “such short delays . . . usually do not prejudice the plaintiff” (internal quotation marks omitted)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).