This court order stays the current briefing schedule in the case of Gibson v. Himes pending the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals' decision in two similar cases, DeBoer v. Snyder and Love v. Beshear, which are scheduled to have oral arguments on August 6, 2014. The order allows the plaintiffs two weeks after the Sixth Circuit's decision to supplement their motion for declaratory judgment and permanent injunctive relief.
Original Description:
Doc 19 - Order staying case pending 6th Circuit decision in related Ohio cases.
This court order stays the current briefing schedule in the case of Gibson v. Himes pending the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals' decision in two similar cases, DeBoer v. Snyder and Love v. Beshear, which are scheduled to have oral arguments on August 6, 2014. The order allows the plaintiffs two weeks after the Sixth Circuit's decision to supplement their motion for declaratory judgment and permanent injunctive relief.
This court order stays the current briefing schedule in the case of Gibson v. Himes pending the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals' decision in two similar cases, DeBoer v. Snyder and Love v. Beshear, which are scheduled to have oral arguments on August 6, 2014. The order allows the plaintiffs two weeks after the Sixth Circuit's decision to supplement their motion for declaratory judgment and permanent injunctive relief.
This matter currently has a briefing schedule (Doc. 13). On Wednesday, August 6, 2014, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals will hear oral argument on two cases: DeBoer, et al v. Snyder, et al, Case No. 14-1341 and Love, et al v. Beshear, Case No. 14-5818, which matters are substantially similar to the instant case. Therefore, in the interest of judicial economy, the calendar is stayed pending the Circuits decision on the DeBoer and Love cases 1 . Upon issuance of the decision, the Plaintiffs shall have two weeks to supplement their previously filed Motion for Declaratory J udgment and Permanent Injunctive Relief and Memorandum In Support (Doc. 17). All of the foregoing is subject to the continuing jurisdiction of the Court. IT IS SO ORDERED. s/Michael R. Barrett________________ Michael R. Barrett, J udge United States District Court
1 To which Plaintiffs object. Case: 1:14-cv-00347-MRB Doc #: 19 Filed: 08/04/14 Page: 1 of 1