Comfort Line Products, Inc. v. Oceantis LLC et al

Filing 55

ORDER re 54 Joint Stipulation to a Stay of the Proceeding and Request to Schedule Judicial Settlement Conference filed by Comfort Line Products, Inc. The Joint Stipulation to a Stay of the Proceedings and Request to Schedule Judicial Settlem ent Conference is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. The Court stays this case pending resolution of the state court action. But it denies without prejudice the parties' request for a judicial settlement conference. All proceedings in this c ase are STAYED until the parties advise the Court that the state court case has been finished and the stay is due to be lifted or the case is due to be dismissed. The parties must notify the Court of such matters within seven days of the state court case ending. The parties are DIRECTED to file a joint report on the status of the state court case on or before February 27, 2019, and every ninety days after until that case concludes. The Clerk is DIRECTED to add a stay flag. Signed by Judge Sheri Polster Chappell on 11/29/2018. (LMF)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
FORT MYERS DIVISION
COMFORT LINE PRODUCTS, INC., a
Florida corporation
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No: 2:17-cv-198-FtM-99CM

OCEANTIS LLC and MICHAEL
SHAWN O’BRIEN,
Defendants.
/
OPINION AND ORDER1
Before the Court is the parties’ Joint Stipulation to a Stay of the Proceedings and
Request to Schedule Judicial Settlement Conference. (Doc. 54). The Court directed the
parties to address whether this case should be stayed pending resolution of a first-filed
case the parties have been litigating in state court.2 (Doc. 52). The parties reiterate that
“the state action was filed prior to the pending matter and includes claims that
substantively correspond to the counterclaims in the present federal action.” (Doc. 54 at
1). Because staying this case will “facilitate the Court’s schedule and be in the interest of
judicial economy and efficiency,” the parties request a stay. (Doc. 54 at 1). The parties
also ask the Court to refer this case to the non-assigned United States Magistrate Judge

1

Disclaimer: Documents filed in CM/ECF may contain hyperlinks to other documents or websites. These
hyperlinks are provided only for users’ convenience. Users are cautioned that hyperlinked documents in
CM/ECF are subject to PACER fees. By allowing hyperlinks to other websites, this Court does not endorse,
recommend, approve, or guarantee any third parties or the services or products they provide on their
websites. Likewise, the Court has no agreements with any of these third parties or their websites. The
Court accepts no responsibility for the availability or functionality of any hyperlink. Thus, the fact that a
hyperlink ceases to work or directs the user to some other site does not affect the opinion of the Court.
2

The case caption for the underlying state court case is Oceanis LLC et al. v. Comfort Line Products, Inc.
et al., No. 16-CA-49 (Fla. Cir. Ct.).

for a settlement conference to help resolve the outstanding claims. (Doc. 54 at 1-2). For
the below reasons, the Court will grant the stay but deny the settlement conference.
“[T]he power to stay proceedings is incidental 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. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254-55 (1936);
see also Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 709 (1997). Determining whether a stay is
justified requires an “exercise of judgment, which must weigh competing interests and
maintain an even balance.” Landis, 299 U.S. at 254-55. The Court will exercise its
discretion and stay this case. Simultaneously litigating the counterclaims here and in
state court cuts against the goals of judicial economy and consistency. But referring this
case for a settlement conference is not prudent considering the stay and underling state
court litigation. If the parties move to lift the stay after the state court case resolves, they
may request a judicial settlement conference at that time.
Accordingly, it is now
ORDERED:
1. The Joint Stipulation to a Stay of the Proceedings and Request to Schedule
Judicial Settlement Conference is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.
The Court stays this case pending resolution of the state court action. But it
denies without prejudice the parties’ request for a judicial settlement
conference.
2. All proceedings in this case are STAYED until the parties advise the Court that
the state court case has been finished and the stay is due to be lifted or the

2

case is due to be dismissed. The parties must notify the Court of such matters
within seven days of the state court case ending.
3. The parties are DIRECTED to file a joint report on the status of the state court
case on or before February 27, 2019, and every ninety days after until that
case concludes.
4. The Clerk is DIRECTED to add a stay flag.
DONE and ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida on this 29th day of November 2018.

Copies: All Parties of Record

3