Weinke v. Microsoft Corp., Civ.A. 99-C-1505.
| Decision Date | 18 February 2000 |
| Docket Number | No. Civ.A. 99-C-1505.,Civ.A. 99-C-1505. |
| Parties | Robert WEINKE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. MICROSOFT CORPORATION, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Wisconsin |
Leonard B. Simon, Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach, San Diego, CA, David J. Bershad, Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach, New York City, Ken Vianale, Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach, Boca Raton, FL, Mark D. Bogen, Attorney-at-Law, Deerfield Beach, FL, John F. Maloney, McNally, Maloney & Peterson, s.c., Milwaukee, WI, for plaintiff.
W. Stuart Parsons, Jeffrey Morris, Quarles & Brady, LLP, Milwaukee, WI, David B. Tulchin, Sullivan & Cromwell, New York City, Charles B. Casper, Montgomery, McCracken, Walker & Rhoads, LLP, Philadelphia, PA, Steve W. Berman, Hagens Berman, Seattle, WA, Thomas W. Burt, Richard Wallis, Microsoft Corp., Redmond, WA, for defendant.
ORDER DATED Feb 18, 2000 GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS and DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO REMAND
On December 20, 1999, plaintiff Robert Weinke ("Weinke") filed this class action complaint in Milwaukee County Circuit Court, alleging that defendant Microsoft Corporation ("Microsoft") has engaged in various monopolistic activities. Microsoft timely removed the action to this court, alleging that this court has jurisdiction over this action based on 28 U.S.C. § 1332, because there is diversity of citizenship and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.
Microsoft has filed a motion to stay these proceedings, pending a decision by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ("MDL Panel") as to whether this action will be transferred to a district along with similar civil actions for pretrial proceedings. Weinke has filed a motion to remand this action to state court, arguing that this court does not have subject matter jurisdiction because Microsoft cannot establish that the amount-in-controversy element of diversity jurisdiction has been met.
Microsoft's counsel has represented that more than fifty similar class actions have been commenced against Microsoft around the country, and that as of February 2, 2000, remand motions are pending in eighteen of those actions. (Def.'s Feb. 2, 2000 Br. at 1-2.)
Weinke cites no controlling authority which would divest this court of its discretion to stay this action under the present circumstances. Weinke states in conclusory fashion that if this action is not remanded, the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Meyers v. Bayer Ag
...(N.D.Cal.1997) (same), and Villarreal v. Chrysler Corp., 1996 WL 116832 (N.D.Cal. Mar.11, 1996) (same), with Weinke v. Microsoft Corp., 84 F.Supp.2d 989, 990 (E.D.Wis.2000) (granting stay and deferring motion to remand to MDL), and Tench v. Jackson Nat'l Life Ins. Co., No. 99 C 5182, 1999 W......
-
Smith v. Mail Boxes, Etc.
...by MDL panel after finding that judicial resources would be conserved and defendant would not be prejudiced); Weinke v. Microsoft Corp., 84 F.Supp.2d 989, 990 (E.D.Wis.2000) (staying action, including remand motion, pending MDL Panel transfer decision after finding that a stay would serve t......
-
Board of Trustees of Teachers' Retire. v. Worldcom, 02 C 5542.
...in courts all over the country is no doubt burdensome. The Banks also cite the risk of inconsistent rulings. See Weinke v. Microsoft Corp., 84 F.Supp.2d 989, 990 (E.D.Wis.2000). This risk appears genuine given the difficulty of the jurisdictional issues presented. Indeed, one court has alre......
-
Hammerstrom v. Syngenta AG, Syngenta Crop Prot. AG, Syngenta Corp.
...will promote judicial economy and avoid inconsistent litigation results, the Court will grant the motion. See Weinke v. Microsoft Corp., 84 F. Supp. 2d 989, 990 (E.D. Wis. 2000) (recognizing that stays pending MDL transfer decisions are prudent "in the interest of judicial economy and to av......