Cason et al v. Anderson

Filing 14

ORDER denying 11 Motion to Stay. Signed by Judge J. Randal Hall on 12/17/2014. (thb)

IN THE UNITED
FOR THE

STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
AUGUSTA DIVISION

•

ADAM CASON and SAMANTHA

CASON,
*

Plaintiffs,
*
*

v.

COREY DRU ANDERSON,

CV

114-186

*

*
*

Defendant.

0

On

November

26,

R

D

2013,

Company ("Progressive")

E

R

Progressive

Mountain

Insurance

filed suit against Cory Dru Anderson,

well as Adam Cason and Southern Trust Insurance Company,
declaratory
indemnify

judgment

Mr.

Anderson

"underlying action")

(collectively,
Anderson,
a

No.

non-party

Plaintiffs

insurance

it

in

stay
Mr.

coverage

not

obligated

above-captioned

brought against him by Mr.

CV 113-213
to

is

the

"Plaintiffs").

and

declaratory

that

proceedings

Anderson

issue

judgment

until

raised

suit.

tort

in

Upon

seeking

defend
suit

and Mrs.

(See Progressive Mtn.

(S.D. Ga.).)

all

to

Ins.

as

or
(the

Cason

Co. v.

Progressive now moves as
in
the

this

action

Court

resolves

Progressive's

review

counsel and the relevant legal authorities,

of

the

between
the

independent
arguments

of

Progressive's motion

for stay (Doc. 11) is DENIED.

The power of a trial court to stay an action pending on its
docket

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

How this

which

can best

must

be

weigh

balance."

this

done

v.

N.

power

for counsel,

calls

competing

Landis

"However,

for itself,

interests

Am.

must

for the

Co.,

not

299

be

and for litigants.

exercise

and
U.S.

of

judgment,

maintain
248,

exercised

an

254-55

lightly,"

even

(1936).

and

the

decision of whether or not to grant a stay falls wholly within
the

Court's

Inc. , No.

discretion.

CV

1985) ; Home
1083

stay,

(N.D.

585-080,

Ins.
Ga.

Co.

1985
v.

1983).

Hampshire

WL

5407,

Ins.

at

*1

Co.

(S.D.

Coastal Lumber Co.,

Thus,

575

v.

Shoney's,

Ga.
F.

Aug.

Supp.

21,

1081,

" [w]hen confronted with a motion to

the district court must consider its own interests in an

orderly disposition of
interests

O'Quinn,

in

the

566

F.

Co.

v.

2927580,

two

actions."

2d

&

B

(M.D. Ga.

Oct.

1376

at

Enters.,

and the parties'
Markel

1374,

575 F. Supp.

PL

at *1

its caseload,

Supp.

Coastal Lumber,
Ins.

New

Int'l.

(S.D.

Ga.

competing

Ins.

2008)

Co.

(citing

1083) ; see also Florists'
Inc.,

11,

No.

7:05-CV-50,

v.

Mut.

2006

WL

2006).

Progressive relies exclusively on Markel for the conclusory

proposition
defending

a

prejudice

Progressive
account

of

that
suit

to

the

that

may

Plaintiffs.

further
the

prejudice

contends

an

lack

insurance

coverage

(PMI

that

stay would only be

Br.,

the

company

"far

"slight,"

in

to

outweighs"

the

11-1/

Doc.

delay

faces

7.)

at

Plaintiffs

on

presumably on the

assumption that the Court imminently will rule in Progressive's
2

favor

in

the

related

thereby relieving

it

pending

of

its

declaratory

duty

judgment

to defend Mr.

action,

Anderson here.

(Id.)

Plaintiffs oppose Progressive's motion to stay.

Resp.,

Doc.

13.)

Plaintiffs

contend

(1)

that

(See Pis.'

Progressive

may

not seek a stay at all because it is not party to the underlying
suit

and

(2)

declaratory
aware

of

Progressive's

relief

the

delay

— approximately

underlying

denying the motion.

tort

(Id.

in

1.5

claims

at 1,

3.)

filing

years

— is

its

after

further

proceed

to

trial

on

their

it

for

became

ground

for

Plaintiffs also assert that

regardless of Progressive's coverage obligations,
to

action

claims

against

they are ready

Mr.

Anderson

as

" [d] iscovery is believed to be complete"1 and there

is other

insurance

in

favor.

coverage
(Id.)

available

Plaintiffs

do

prejudice,

for

allegations

of

result

additional

parties,

"in

to

satisfy

not,

expense,

a

judgment

however,

instance,

make

that

potential

any

a

their

specific

delay

insolvency

would

of

the

or the death or faded memories of relevant witnesses."

See Florists'

Mut.,

2006 WL 2927580,

at *2.

1
Plaintiffs
filed
this action as a
renewal pursuant
to O.C.G.A.
§ 9-2-61.
(Compl., Doc. 1, 11 4. )
Plaintiffs originally filed suit in the

Superior Court of McDuffie County, Georgia in April 2012.
(Id.)
According
to Progressive's brief in support of its motion for summary judgment in the
declaratory judgment action, Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the McDuffie
County action just days before it was set to proceed to trial.
Progressive
Mtn.

Ins.

2014).

Co.

v.

Anderson,

No.

CV 113-213,

Doc.

31-1,

at 2

(S.D.

Ga.

Oct.

8,

Recognizing
inherent

that

authority,

the

Court

the

Court

must
does

not
not

equities warrants a stay in this case.
case

would

contract
Phila.

most

with

prejudice

Progressive

Indem.

Ins.

2007 WL 4336331,

575

F. Supp.

cases

are

judgment

at

not

Co.

at

*2

the

Ga.

Dec.

balance

against
Inc.,

7,

no

Progressive.

No.

2007);

have

5:07-CV-387,

Coastal Lumber,

the

have

no

resolution

impact

on

of

the

the

declaratory

resolution of

Mr.

Anderson's alleged liability in the underlying tort suit.
Simply,

" [i] t

part[ies]

would not

seeking

[Plaintiffs]

on

be

back

declaratory judgment as
made

fair

to

[Plaintiffs] ,

compensatory damages,
a

of

a stay in this

Plaintiffs

claim

its

The legal questions involved in the two

same;

action will

no

lightly

the

Indeed,

Macon Mortg.,

(M.D.

1083.

find

Plaintiffs.

and

v.

exercise

burner

to

with someone else."

its

for

while

duties

injured

court

[Progressive]

to

Surety & Ins.

575

F.

Corp.

Supp.

put

seeks

under a contract

Coastal Lumber,

(citing as persuasive Cent.

this

[ ]

Id.

a

it has
at

v. Norris,

1084

103

F.2d 116, 117 (5th Cir. 1939)2); see also New Hampshire Ins. Co.,
1985 WL 5407,
it

filed

underlying

at *1 (denying an insurer's motion for stay, which

after

suit

plaintiffs'

and

on

completion

the

eve

of

of

discovery

trial,

and

in

the

finding

" [p]laintiffs' right to have their case heard in a timely manner

2
See Bonner v. City of Prichard, Ala., 661 F.2d 1206, 1207 (11th Cir.
1981) (holding Fifth Circuit decisions made on or before September 30, 1981,
are binding precedent in Eleventh Circuit).

carries

great

injuries

weight").

almost

four

case on the merits.
Denial of

Plaintiffs

years

ago

suffered

and

are

(See Pis.' Resp.

their

eager

to

respective

resolve

this

at 3.)

the stay will prejudice Progressive only in that

it will be required to continue to defend its insured under the

reservation of rights it purports to have in place or to deny a

defense
Phi la.

outright
Indem.,

and

2007

run
WL

the

risk

4336331,

at

of

bad

*2.

faith

As

this

penalties.
action

address the underlying tort claims is already in progress,

to

there

appears to be little work left before it proceeds to trial, and
Progressive

is

already

defense,

is

in the best interests of

these

it

two

interests

suits

in

inconvenience

that

staying
and

December,

this

some

action

this

prejudice

Court DENIES the motion.

ORDER ENTERED

incurring

(Doc.

of

Mr.

Anderson's

the various parties to

proceed.

action
to

costs

do

Plaintiffs

As

not
by

Progressive's

outweigh
the

delay,

the
the

11.)

at Augusta,

Georgia,

this

/ 7**-* day of

2014.

HONO

LE J./RANDAL HALL

UNITED

STATES

SOUTHS RN

DISTRICT JUDGE

DISTRICT OF GEORGIA