Chabad Lubavitch of Litchfield County Inc et al v. Litchfield et al

Filing 193

RULING denying 189 Motion to Stay, without prejudice to the plaintiffs seeking, at the Court of Appeals, that the mandate be recalled and a stay issue. Relief may also be sought at the United States Supreme Court. Signed by Judge Janet C. Hall on 1/28/2015. (Malone, P.)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

CHABAD LUBAVITCH OF LITCHFIELD
COUNTY, INC. et al.,
Plaintiffs,

CIVIL ACTION NO.
3:09-CV-1419 (JCH)

v.
BOROUGH OF LITCHFIELD,
CONNECTICUT et al.,
Defendants.

JANUARY 28, 2015

RULING RE: MOTION TO STAY PENDING APPEAL [sic] (Doc. No. 189)
The plaintiffs have moved for a stay of this action pending the resolution of the
defendants’ petition for certiorari, currently pending before the Supreme Court of the
United States. Although the parties have briefed the Motion from both sides, no party
addressed the court’s authority to grant a stay. While in general the court has “the
power to stay proceedings [as an] incident[ ] to the power inherent in every court to
control the disposition of the causes on its docket with economy of time and effort for
itself, for counsel, and for litigants,” Landis v. N. Amer. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936),
the basis that the plaintiffs give for seeking a stay presents an exception to that rule.
Section 2101(f) of title 28 of the United States Code provides:
In any case in which the final judgment or decree of any court is subject to review
by the Supreme Court on writ of certiorari, the execution and enforcement of
such judgment or decree may be stayed for a reasonable time to enable the
party aggrieved to obtain a writ of certiorari from the Supreme Court. The stay
may be granted by a judge of the court rendering the judgment or decree or by a
justice of the Supreme Court . . . .
This provision appears to grant power to stay the execution of a mandate of the Court of
Appeals to the Court of Appeals itself and to the Supreme Court, and, by implication, to

1

deprive the district courts of the power to stay the execution of a mandate. See
Studiengesellschaft Kohle, mbH v. Novamont Corp., 578 F. Supp. 78 (1983); Kozman v.
Trans World Airlines, Inc., 145 F. Supp. 140 (S.D.N.Y. 1956). The court is not aware of
the Second Circuit’s resolution of this issue. Cf. In re Stumes, 681 F.2d 524 (8th Cir.
1982) (concluding in dicta that a district court does not have this power). Accordingly,
the Motion is DENIED, but without prejudice to the plaintiffs seeking, at the Court of
Appeals, that the mandate be recalled and a stay issue. Relief may also be sought at
the United States Supreme Court.
The plaintiffs’ deadline for filing an opposition to the pending Motions for
Summary Judgment is hereby extended to 14 days from the date of this Order’s entry.
If any plaintiff does in fact seek the aforementioned relief from the Court of
Appeals or Supreme Court within the 14 days following the entry of this Order and files
with this court a notice to this effect, the court will further extend the summary judgment
opposition deadline by the earlier of (a) 30 days or (b) 14 days from the entry of an
order by the Court of Appeals or Supreme Court denying the Motion to Stay. Any
plaintiff seeking such relief is further ordered to file with this court a notice of any
proceedings with respect to the corresponding motion within 5 calendar days of the
occurrence of any such proceedings.
SO ORDERED.
Dated at New Haven, Connecticut this 28th day of January 2015.

/s/ Janet C. Hall
Janet C. Hall
United States District Judge

2