BANKS v. COTTER CORPORATION

No. 4:18-CV-00624 JAR.

TAMIA BANKS, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. COTTER CORPORATION, et al., Defendants.

United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division.

June 14, 2018.

Editors Note
Applicable Law: 42 U.S.C. § 1396
Cause: 42 U.S.C. § 1396 - Tort Negligence
Nature of Suit: 893 Environmental Matters
Source: PACER


Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Tamia Banks, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Alexander L. Braitberg , KEANE LAW LLC, Celeste Brustowicz , THE COOPER LAW FIRM, LLC, pro hac vice, Ryan A. Keane , KEANE LAW LLC & Victor T. Cobb , COOPER LAW FIRM, LLC, pro hac vice.

Cotter Corporation, Defendant, represented by Dale A. Guariglia , BRYAN CAVE LLP, Erin Lynn Brooks , BRYAN CAVE LLP, John McGahren , MORGAN AND LEWIS LLP, pro hac vice, Stephanie Feingold , MORGAN AND LEWIS LLP, pro hac vice & Su Jin Kim , MORGAN AND LEWIS LLP, pro hac vice.

Commonwealth Edison Company & Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Defendants, represented by Alexander L. Braitberg , KEANE LAW LLC, Dale A. Guariglia , BRYAN CAVE LLP, Erin Lynn Brooks , BRYAN CAVE LLP, John McGahren , MORGAN AND LEWIS LLP, pro hac vice, Ryan A. Keane , KEANE LAW LLC, Stephanie Feingold , MORGAN AND LEWIS LLP, pro hac vice & Su Jin Kim , MORGAN AND LEWIS LLP, pro hac vice.

Exelon Corporation, Defendant, represented by Dale A. Guariglia , BRYAN CAVE LLP, Erin Lynn Brooks , BRYAN CAVE LLP, John McGahren , MORGAN AND LEWIS LLP, pro hac vice, Ryan A. Keane , KEANE LAW LLC, Stephanie Feingold , MORGAN AND LEWIS LLP, pro hac vice & Su Jin Kim , MORGAN AND LEWIS LLP, pro hac vice.

DJR Holdings, Inc., formerly known as, Defendant, represented by Alexander L. Braitberg , KEANE LAW LLC, Ryan A. Keane , KEANE LAW LLC & Saturnin Martin Jansky , MARTIN JANSKY LAW FIRM, PC.

Saint Louis Airport Authority, A Department of the City of St. Louis, Defendant, represented by John F. Cowling , ARMSTRONG TEASDALE LLP.


MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff's Motion to Stay Defendants' Motions to Dismiss Pending Resolution of Plaintiff's Motion for Remand. (Doc. No. 47) Defendants do not oppose a reasonable stay of the briefing its motions to dismiss, but assert that the...

Let's get started

Leagle.com

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.

  • Updated daily.
  • Uncompromising quality.
  • Complete, Accurate, Current.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases