Green v. Brown et al

Filing 200

ORDER denying 192 Motion Requesting a Stay of Proceedings to Enforce A Judgment by Magistrate Judge Michael E. Hegarty on 05/02/12.(jjhsl, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 10-cv-02669-WYD-MEH
STEVEN DOUGLAS GREEN,
Plaintiff,
v.
DARRELL SNYDER,
Defendant.

ORDER

Michael E. Hegarty, United States Magistrate Judge.
Before the Court is Plaintiff’s “Motion Requesting a Stay of Proceedings to Enforce A
Judgement Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 62(b)(1)” [filed April 23, 2012; docket #192]. Pursuant to
D.C. Colo. LCivR 7.1C, the Court decides the motion without a response from Defendant. For the
reasons that follow, the Court denies Plaintiff’s motion.
At the outset, the Court notes that Fed. R. Civ. P. 62(b)(1) is not applicable at this stage in
the proceedings. Rule 62(b) allows the court, under limited circumstances, to stay the execution of
a judgment. Because judgment has not yet been entered in this case, a stay is not warranted on that
basis.
Although the Court cannot stay the execution of a non-existent judgment, a stay of pretrial
matters is possible at this stage of the litigation. However, a stay of all proceedings is generally
disfavored in this District. See Chavez v. Young Am. Ins. Co., No. 06-cv-02419-PSF-BNB, 2007
WL 683973, at *2 (D. Colo. Mar. 2, 2007). In determining whether a stay is appropriate, the
following five factors guide the Court’s analysis:
(1) plaintiff’s interest in proceeding expeditiously with the civil action and the

potential prejudice to plaintiff of a delay; (2) the burden on the defendant; (3) the
convenience to the court; (4) the interests of persons not parties to the civil litigation;
and (5) the public interest.
String Cheese Incident, LLC v. Stylus Shows, Inc., No. 02-cv-01934-LTB-PAC, 2006 WL 894955,
at *2 (D. Colo. Mar. 30, 2006); see also Golden Quality Ice Cream Co. v. Deerfield Speciality
Papers, Inc., 87 F.R.D. 53, 56 (E.D. Pa. 1980).
Plaintiff’s motion does not address the String Cheese factors directly; however, the Court
infers from Plaintiff’s decision to request a stay that Plaintiff does not contemplate significant
prejudice as a result. Although Defendant has not presented an opinion on the relief sought, the
Court considers possible prejudice that he may suffer as a result of a stay. In particular, the Court
notes that Defendant has already filed a proposed pretrial order and appears ready to proceed with
final pretrial conference scheduled before this Court on May 2, 2012. (See docket #195.) Vacating
the pretrial conference until the resolution of the cross motions for summary judgment would likely
require Defendant to duplicate his efforts in this regard. Additionally, the Court also recognizes
Defendant’s general interest in the prompt resolution of the claims asserted against him in this
lawsuit.
Consideration of the remaining String Cheese factors tips the balance against a stay. Since
the parties appear ready for the final pretrial conference, the Court finds, and Plaintiff provides, no
reason why it should not go forward. The matter is already scheduled, and it is more convenient for
the Court to proceed as planned. The Court also notes that “[i]n the litigation context, delay is not
only a practical concern...but also a social concern, as it is cost prohibitive and threatens the
credibility of the justice system.” Chavez, 2007 WL 683973 at *2 (quoting Mariel Rodak, It’s About
Time: A Systems Thinking Analysis of the Litigation Finance Industry and Its Effect on Settlement,
155 U. P.A. L. Rev. 503, 528 (2006)). Factors three, four, and five weigh against a stay.

2

In consideration of the String Cheese factors, the Court finds that an indefinite stay of the
proceedings is not appropriate in this case.
Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, the Court denies Plaintiff’s “Motion Requesting
a Stay of Proceedings to Enforce A Judgement Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 62(b)(1)” [filed April 23,
2012; docket #192].
Dated at Denver, Colorado, this 2nd day of May, 2012.

BY THE COURT:

Michael E. Hegarty
United States Magistrate Judge

3