In Re Brad Galpin et al
ORDER AND REASONS: IT IS ORDERED that the 84 Motion to Stay is GRANTED and this action shall be administratively closed, as set forth in document. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Parties shall, within ten (10) days of the conclusion of the criminal pr oceedings against Defendant Paul Griffin Jr., provide this Court with an update as to the status and/or result of said criminal matter, as set forth in document. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant's 85 Motion for Expedited Hearing is DISMISSED as moot. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Pre-Trial Conference set for 5/5/2018 and Trial currently set for 6/11/2018 are hereby canceled. Signed by Judge Ivan L.R. Lemelle on 3/8/2018. (jls)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
IN THE MATTER OF BRAD GALPIN AND
WILLIAM CASTER, AS OWNERS, AND
PAUL GRIFFIN, AS OPERATOR, OF THE
2004 28' TRITON 2895, PETITIONING FOR
EXONERATION FROM OR LIMITATION
ORDER AND REASONS
Considering Defendant Grand Isle Port Commission’s “Motion to
Stay, and, in the Alternative, Motion to Continue” (Rec. Doc. 84),
Defendant’s Motion for Expedited Hearing on its Motion to Continue”
85), and all Plaintiffs’ Response in Opposition (Rec.
incrimination multiple times during discovery in this case. See Rec.
Doc. 84-2. “It is clear that the Fifth Amendment would serve as a
shield to any party who feared that complying with discovery would
expose him to a risk of self-incrimination.” Wehling v. Columbia
Broad. Sys., 608 F.2d 1084, 1086 (5th Cir. 1979).
Under “special circumstances” a district court should stay one
of the proceedings pending completion of the other to prevent a party
from suffering substantial and irreparable prejudice. Sec. & Exch.
Comm'n v. First Fin. Grp. of Texas, Inc., 659 F.2d 660, 668 (5th
Cir. 1981). “A district court's power to stay proceedings also
encompasses the discretionary authority to stay a civil action
pending the resolution of parallel criminal proceedings when the
interests of justice so require.” United States v. Little Al, 712
F.2d 133, 135 (5th Cir.1983). In deciding whether or not a stay is
warranted, this Court applies the following five-factor test:
1) the extent to which the issues in the criminal and civil
2) the status of the case, including whether the defendant has
3) the plaintiff's interest in proceeding expeditiously weighed
against the prejudice to the plaintiff caused by a delay;
4) the private interest of and burden on the defendant;
5) the interest of the court and the public interest.
Darryl Lodge v. Doe, ET. AL., No. CV 11-1257, 2012 WL 12990524, at
*1 (E.D. La. Sept. 11, 2012).
determinative outcome in the related criminal proceedings weighs
substantially in the favor of all parties, including the Court.
IT IS ORDERED that the Motion to Stay is GRANTED and this
action shall be administratively closed, without prejudice to the
parties' right to reopen the case upon filing a timely motion to
lift the stay.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Parties shall, within ten (10) days
of the conclusion of the criminal proceedings against Defendant Paul
Griffin Jr., provide this Court with an update as to the status
and/or result of said criminal matter; and B) if warranted, Claimant
shall file a motion to reopen the case and lift the stay provided
such motion is filed no later than ten (10) days after exhaustion of
criminal proceedings. Failure to comply with above order may lead to
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion for Expedited
Hearing (Rec. Doc.
85) is DISMISSED as moot.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Pre-Trial Conference set for May 5,
2018 and Trial currently set for June 11, 2018 are hereby canceled.
New Orleans, Louisiana, 8th day of March, 2018.
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?