Rawlins v. Select Specialty Hospital of Northwest Indiana, Inc.
Filing
83
OPINION AND ORDER denying 78 Motion to Stay. Signed by Magistrate Judge Andrew P Rodovich on 9/13/12. cc: Rawlins (mc)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
HAMMOND DIVISION
SARAH RAWLINS, Special
Administrator of the Estate of
Aubrey Rawlins, Deceased,
Plaintiff
v.
SELECT SPECIALTY HOSPITAL OF
NORTHWEST INDIANA, INC.,
Defendant
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CIVIL NO. 2:10 cv 156
OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the court on the Motion for a Stay of
Court Proceedings [DE 78] filed by the plaintiff, Sarah Rawlins,
on June 11, 2012.
For the following reasons, the motions is
DENIED.
Background
The plaintiff, Sarah Rawlins, originally filed this matter
before the Indiana Department of Insurance on April 30, 2007,
alleging medical malpractice.
April 24, 2009.
The panel issued an opinion on
Rawlins proceeded to file a pro se complaint in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois.
The defendant filed a motion to dismiss for lack of
personal jurisdiction and improper venue, and the parties subsequently agreed to transfer the case to the Northern District of
Indiana.
At this time, Attorney Jason Gatzulis entered an
appearance for the plaintiff.
On July 19, 2010, the defendant served interrogatories on
Rawlins seeking information concerning the exact nature of the
malpractice and the identity of the plaintiff’s expert witnesses.
Rawlins responded and reserved the right to name opinion witnesses in accordance with the court’s orders.
The court held a
status conference on February 18, 2011, set a discovery deadline
of November 30, 2011, and directed the plaintiff to deliver her
expert witness disclosures and reports by July 29, 2011.
April 8, 2011, Rawlins’ attorney withdrew his appearance.
On
On
July 22, 2011, Attorney Tracy Coleman entered her appearance for
Rawlins and asked to vacate the case management order.
The court
set new deadlines, directing Rawlins to deliver her expert witness disclosures and reports by January 31, 2012.
The deadline
was extended by agreement of the parties until March 16, 2012.
Attorney Coleman withdrew on February 23, 2012.
The plaintiff
has proceeded pro se since this time, and now requests a stay of
the proceedings to amend her complaint, locate an expert, and
seek new counsel.
Discussion
A court has incidental power to stay proceedings, which
stems from its inherent power to manage its docket. Landis v.
2
North American Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254–55, 57 S.Ct. 163, 166, 81
L.Ed. 153 (1936); Walker v. Monsanto Co. Pension Plan, 472
F.Supp.2d 1053, 1054 (S.D. Ill. 2006). The decision to grant a
stay is committed to the sound discretion of the court and must
be exercised consistent with principles of fairness and judicial
economy. Brooks v. Merck & Co., 443 F.Supp.2d 994, 997 (S.D. Ill.
2006); Rutherford v. Merck & Co., 428 F.Supp.2d 842, 845 (S.D.
Ill. 2006); George v. Kraft Foods Global, 2006 WL 3842169 (S.D.
Ill. 2006). "Courts often consider the following factors when
deciding whether to stay an action: (i) whether a stay will
unduly prejudice or tactically disadvantage the non-moving party,
(ii) whether a stay will simplify the issues in question and
streamline the trial, and (iii) whether a stay will reduce the
burden of litigation on the parties and on the court." Abbott
Laboratories v. Matrix Laboratories, Inc., 2009 WL 3719214, *2
(N.D. Ill. 2009). "The general test for imposing a stay requires
the court to 'balance interests favoring a stay against interests
frustrated by the action' in light of the 'court's paramount
obligation to exercise jurisdiction timely in cases properly
before it.'"
SanDisk Corp. v. Phison Electronics Corp., 538
F.Supp.2d 1060, 1066 (W.D. Wis.2008) (citing Cherokee Nation of
Oklahoma v. United States, 124 F.3d 1413, 1416 (Fed. Cir. 1997)).
The moving party must show good cause to stay discovery.
3
Castrillon v. St. Vincent Hospital and Health Care Center, Inc.,
2011 WL 4538089, *1 (S.D. Ind. 2011) (applying Rule 26(c) good
cause standard to motion to stay); DSM Desotech, Inc. v. 3D
Systems Corp., 2008 WL 4812440, *1 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 28, 2008)
(same).
Rawlins has been without an attorney since February 23,
2012.
She has not explained any efforts she has made to find an
attorney or given any reason for her failure to procure one
within the past seven months.
She also has not explained why she
was unable to locate and identify any expert witnesses within the
two years the defendant has been seeking this information, nor is
it clear why she intends to amend her complaint.
The court
recognizes the challenges faced by a pro se litigant, however,
this does not excuse Rawlins from complying with the rules of the
court.
Rawlins has not demonstrated good cause for her failure
to move this case forward within its two year pendency, particularly, the seven months she has been without counsel.
The court
must weigh its obligation to hear cases in a timely manner, and
absent any explanation for why Rawlins has failed to obtain
counsel, find expert witnesses, or amend her complaint within the
past seven months, it is difficult to accept that Rawlins will
complete these tasks within the coming months.
4
The defendant has
an interest in resolving this matter, and the court finds
Rawlins’ motion is without good reason to stay the proceedings.
_______________
Based on the foregoing, the Motion for a Stay of Court
Proceedings [DE 78] filed by the plaintiff, Sarah Rawlins, on
June 11, 2012, is DENIED.
ENTERED this 13th day of September, 2012
s/ ANDREW P. RODOVICH
United States Magistrate Judge
5
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?