White Caps Condominium Association, Inc. v. United Specialty Insurance Company et al

Filing 15

Order GRANTING #14 Joint MOTION to Stay filed by Underwriters at Lloyds, London UMR B1776BP202320M002, United Specialty Insurance Company, Arch Specialty Insurance Company. This action is STAYED until 1/16/2023. The Parties are ORDERED to file a Joint Status Report on or before 1/9/2023. Signed by District Judge Kristi K. DuBose on 11/21/2022. (meh)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
SOUTHERN DIVISION
WHITE CAPS CONDOMINIUM
ASSOCIATION, INC.,
Plaintiff,
vs.
UNITED SPECIALTY INSURANCE
COMPANY, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CIVIL ACTION NO. 22-00420-KD-M

ORDER
This action is before the Court on the parties’ joint motion to stay (doc. 14). The parties
report that they have reached a settlement. They jointly move the Court for a forty-five (45) day
stay to allow time to finalize their settlement agreement.
In general, a district court may stay an action as a means of controlling its docket and
managing its cases. Ortega Trujillo v. Conover & Co. Communications, Inc., 221 F.3d 1262,
1264 (11th Cir. 2000) (citation omitted) (a district court has “broad discretion to stay
proceedings as an incident to its power to control its own docket”). However, the “district court
must limit properly the scope of the stay” and the stay “must not be ‘immoderate.’" Id. “In
exercising this discretion, district courts have considered such factors as: (1) whether the
litigation is at an early stage; (2) whether a stay will unduly prejudice or tactically disadvantage
the non-moving party; (3) whether a stay will simplify the issues in question and streamline the
trial; and (4) whether a stay will reduce the burden of litigation on the parties and on the court.”
SE Property Holdings, LLC v. Saint Family Limited Partnership, 2017 WL 1628898, at *11
(S.D. Ala., 2017).

Here, factors one, two, and three weigh in favor of granting the motion to stay. This
action is at an early stage. Defendants have not yet answered or otherwise responded to the
complaint. Therefore, the Court has not entered a Rule 16(b) Scheduling Order. Also, the
parties jointly move. Thus, there is no concern as to prejudice or tactical disadvantage of the nonmoving party. Last, the parties report that a stay is necessary to provide time to finalize a
settlement agreement. Settlement will reduce the burden of litigation.
Upon consideration and for the reasons set forth herein, the motion is GRANTED.
Accordingly, this action is stayed until January 16, 2023. The parties are ORDERED to file a
joint report on or before January 9, 2023, to advise the Court as to the status of this action.
Done and ordered this 21st day of November 2022.
s/ Kristi K. DuBose
KRISTI K. DuBOSE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2