Evanston Insurance Company v. Poma Construction Corp. et al

Filing 31

ORDER granting 30 Joint Motion for Administrative Termination and Staying and Administratively Closing Case. All pending motions, if any, are denied without prejudice and may be refiled once the case is reopened. Signed by Judge Robert N. Scola, Jr on 9/7/2018. See attached document for full details. (mc)

United States District Court
for the
Southern District of Florida
Evanston Insurance Company,
Plaintiff,
v.
Poma Construction Corp., and 4000
Island Boulevard Condominium
Association, Inc., Defendants.

)
)
)
)
) Civil Action No. 18-21116-Civ-Scola
)
)
)

Order Granting Joint Motion for Administrative
Termination and Staying and Administratively Closing Case
Before the Court is the parties’ joint motion for administrative
termination (the “Motion,” ECF No. 30), which requests the Court to
“administratively terminate[]” this action for at least six months pending
ongoing settlement discussions in a related action pending in Florida state
court.
Plaintiff filed this action seeking “to obtain [a] declaratory judgment
finding that it has no duty to defend or indemnify [Defendant Poma
Construction Corp. (“Poma”)] in connection with a lawsuit filed by [Defendant
4000 Island Boulevard Condominium Association, Inc.] against Poma in the
Circuit Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit in and for Miami Dade County,
Florida.” (ECF No. 1, ¶ 9.) Both Defendants answered the Complaint, with
Poma also asserting two counterclaims against Plaintiff. (ECF Nos. 9, 17.) The
parties previously notified the Court of an ongoing global mediation that began
in March 2018, and stated that they intended to “file a Mediation Report upon
the formal conclusion of the mediation.” (ECF No. 27.) No mediation report has
been filed to date, and the Court assumes mediation remains ongoing.
On that note, the Motion represents that “progress has been made
towards settlement of the Underlying Lawsuit,” that “there is a reasonable
possibility that the Underlying Lawsuit will settle,” and that any such
settlement “will most likely resolve all of the issues in this action.” (ECF No. 30,
at 2.) Thus, the parties request that the case be administratively terminated for
at least six months “to provide an ample opportunity for complete settlement of
the related Lawsuit and subsequently this action.” Id.
“District courts have broad discretion in deciding whether to stay
proceedings, incidental to their powers to control and efficiently manage their
dockets.” Prosper v. Martin, 239 G. Supp. 3d 1347, 1349 (S.D. Fla. 2017)

(Altonaga, J.). “Courts consider the relative prejudice and hardship ‘worked on
each party if a stay is or is not granted,’ and general efficiency.” Jones v. Centra
Loan Admin. & Reporting, No. 16-22428-Civ, 2016 WL 4530882, at *1 (S.D. Fla.
Aug. 30, 2016) (Scola, J.) (quoting Fitzer v. Am. Inst. of Baking, Inc., No. 209-cv169, 2010 WL 1955974 (S.D. Ga. May 13, 2010)). Further, “so long as a stay is
neither ‘immoderate’ nor indefinite, a stay is appropriate in the interest of
judicial convenience.” Id. (quoting Ortega Trujillo v. Conover & Co. Commc’ns,
Inc., 221 F.3d 1262 (11th Cir. 2000) (provided that a stay will expire within
reasonable limits, if it is not immoderate)). And “[d]esignating a case ‘closed’
does not prevent the court from reactivating a case either of its own accord or
at the request of the parties.” Fla. Ass’n for Retarded Citizens, Inc. v. Bush, 246
F.3d 1296, 1298 (11th Cir. 2001) (citing Lehman v. Revolution Portfolio LLC,
166 F.3d 389, 392 (1st Cir. 1999)).
Here, the Court interprets the request for “administrative termination” as
a request for a stay. The Motion was jointly filed by all parties and no prejudice
will result from the entry of a stay. A stay will promote judicial economy and
the convenience of the parties, as it may result in the avoidance of time and
resources being unnecessarily expended on litigating a case that may well be
resolved by a settlement of the state court action. While the parties’ request for
a stay of “at least” six months is indefinite, the Court finds a stay of six-months
to be appropriate and not immoderate.
Accordingly, the Court grants the Joint Motion for Administrative
Termination (ECF No. 30), and stays this case. The stay will remain in effect
until a party moves to reopen this case, the Court is notified of a settlement of
this case, or 180 days after the date of this order, whichever occurs first.
During the stay, the parties must jointly file a report notifying the Court of the
progress made towards a settlement of this case every 90 days following the
date of this order.
The Clerk is directed to administratively close this case. All pending
motions, if any, are denied without prejudice and may be refiled once the
case is reopened.
Done and ordered in chambers at Miami, Florida, on September 7,
2018.

________________________________
Robert N. Scola, Jr.
United States District Judge