Yow v. Jack Cooper Transport Company, Inc. et al

Filing 27

ORDER denying 14 Motion to Stay. Signed by Judge David R. Herndon on 11/17/14. (klh, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
CRAIG YOW,
PLAINTIFF,
v.

No. 14-0992-DRH

JACK COOPER TRANSPORT
COMPANY, INC., and AUTO HANDLING
CORPORATION,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM and ORDER
HERNDON, District Judge:
Pending before the Court is defendant Auto Handling Corporation’s motion
to stay proceedings (Doc. 14). Specifically, defendant moves the Court to stay this
matter pending resolution of the motion to dismiss. Clearly, plaintiff opposes the
motion (Doc. 26).

Based on the following, the Court finds that a stay is not

warranted and denies the motion.
“[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, 57 S.Ct. 163, 81 L.Ed. 153 (1936). To exercise this power to stay
proceedings, the Court must first weigh any competing interests. Id.; see

also Radio Corp. of Am. v. Igoe, 217 F.2d 218, 220 (7th Cir.1954) (“Benefit and
hardship will be set off, one against the other, and upon an ascertainment of the
balance the court will exercise a discretionary judgment in the exercise of its

power”). District courts are afforded a wide latitude of discretion in deciding
whether to stay proceedings, and their decisions will not be reversed save for an
abuse thereof. Northfield Ins. Co. v. City of Waukegan, 701 F.3d 1124, 1133 (7th
Cir. 2012).
Here, defendant argues that the benefit to the parties and the Court of
avoiding a waste of resources outweighs any otherwise negligible hardships that
may be caused by the stay pending resolution of the motion to dismiss. Defendant
also argues that the Court should stay the proceedings pending the appellate
decision in Yow v. Jack Cooper Transport Co., Inc., 5-14-0006, as the outcome of
that appeal will affect the outcome of this case.
The Court finds that it is not in the interest of justice of judicial economy to
stay this matter. As noted by plaintiff, the complaint at the case at bar contains
allegations that both defendant and co-defendant Jack Cooper Transport, acting
through their officers, directors and attorneys, engaged in fraudulent behavior in
this Court and in an Illinois Circuit Court.

The Court does not find that a stay is

warranted because defendant Auto Handling Company merely filed a motion to
dismiss.

The motion does not raise a threshold defense such as qualified

immunity; but rather the motion appears to be a routine Rule 12(b)(6) motion, one
for lack of personal jurisdiction and a motion to transfer to the Western District of
Missouri. Further, the Court finds that the outcome in the Illinois Appellate case
will not resolve the issues in this case as plaintiff is seeking different relief. For
instance, in the Illinois Appellate case, plaintiff is seeking against Jack Cooper

Transport a monetary penalty that can be imposed under Illinois Supreme Court
Rule 219 for willful violations of a party’s discovery obligations. Also, relevant as
to that appeal, Auto Handling Corporation is not a party to that action. In this
case, plaintiff has counts against both defendants that do not require of finding of
“willful” conduct. Moreover, a decision from the appellate court could take years.
Lastly, the Court notes that Jack Cooper Transport filed a motion to set aside entry
of default and its attorneys entered appearances on November 14, 2014 (Docs. 22,
24, 25). Thus, Auto Handling Corporation’s arguments that the case should be
stayed until Jack Cooper Transport is served are moot.
Accordingly, the Court DENIES the motion to stay proceedings (Doc. 14).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Signed this 17th day of November, 2014.

Digitally signed by
David R. Herndon
Date: 2014.11.17
14:20:51 -06'00'

United States District Court