Franco's Athletic Club LLC et al v. Davis et al

Filing 25

ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the 23 Motion to Stay is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the above-captioned action is STAYED AND ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSED. Signed by Chief Judge Nannette Jolivette Brown on May 9, 2022. (mp)

Case 2:21-cv-01647-NJB-DMD Document 25 Filed 05/09/22 Page 1 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
FRANCO’S ATHLETIC CLUB, LLC et al.

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

NO. 21-1647

EMILY DAVIS et al.

SECTION: “G”

ORDER
This litigation arises out of an alleged embezzlement scheme. 1 Plaintiffs assert claims
against their former employees, Defendants Jennifer Thompson and Emily Davis, and against their
Insurers (collectively, “Insurer-Defendants”). 2 On January 26, 2022, the Court granted InsurerDefendants’ motion to compel arbitration and stayed this matter as to Insurer-Defendants only,
pending resolution of the arbitration proceedings. 3 Plaintiffs’ claims against Thompson and Davis
remain pending.
Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ “Unopposed Motion to Stay.” 4 In the motion, Plaintiffs move
the Court to stay the case as to Defendants Thompson and Davis. 5 Plaintiffs assert that “they will
incur substantial hardship by proceeding with this case in its current posture,” that Davis and

1

Rec. Doc. 1.

The Insurer-Defendants are: Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s London, General Security Indemnity Co. of
Arizona, HDI Global Specialty SE, Indian Harbor Insurance Co., International Insurance Co. of Hannover SE,
Lexington Insurance Co., Princeton Excess and Surplus Lines Insurance Co., QBE Specialty Insurance Co., Steadfast
Insurance Co., United Specialty Insurance Co. See id.
2

3

Rec. Doc. 13.

4

Rec. Doc. 23.

5

Rec. Doc. 23-2 at 1.

1

Case 2:21-cv-01647-NJB-DMD Document 25 Filed 05/09/22 Page 2 of 3

Thompson will not be prejudiced by a stay and do not oppose this motion, and that staying this
matter will preserve judicial resources. 6
In Landis v. North American Co., the Supreme Court recognized that “the 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.”7
The Supreme Court noted that “how this can best be done calls for the exercise of judgment, which
must weigh competing interests and maintain an even balance.” 8 Therefore, a district court has
“discretionary power to stay proceedings before it in the control of its docket and in the interests
of justice.” 9 Furthermore, a district court may exercise this discretionary power sua sponte. 10
The Court will exercise its discretion and enter a stay. Plaintiffs’ claims against Insurer
Defendants are in arbitration, and Plaintiffs are receiving partial restitution payments from Davis
and Thompson in state court. Therefore, Plaintiffs would incur significant additional expense
pursuing their claims against Davis and Thompson in this Court, particularly when the other
proceedings may moot this proceeding. Additionally, this will preserve judicial resources by
avoiding potentially unnecessary litigation. Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion to Stay 11 is GRANTED.

6

Id.

7

299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936).

8

Id. at 254–55.

9

McKnight v. Blanchard, 667 F.2d 477, 479 (5th Cir. 1982).

See Begum v. Miner, No. 99-20027, 2000 WL 554953, at *1 n.1 (5th Cir. Apr. 20, 2000) (citing Murphy
v. Uncle Ben’s, Inc., 168 F.3d 734, 737 n.1 (5th Cir.1999) (“[W]e have held that the district court may sua sponte stay
a suit as a form of abstention.”).
10

11

Rec. Doc. 23.

2

Case 2:21-cv-01647-NJB-DMD Document 25 Filed 05/09/22 Page 3 of 3

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the above-captioned action is STAYED AND
ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSED.

9th
NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA, this _____ day of May, 2022.

_________________________________
NANNETTE JOLIVETTE BROWN
CHIEF JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

3