CARDELLI et al v. DAE AVIATION ENTERPRISES CORP et al

Filing 38

ORDER denying 29 Motion to Stay By JUDGE NANCY TORRESEN. (dfr)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MAINE
TRACY N. CARDELLI and
NATIONAL UNION FIRE
INSURANCE COMPANY OF
PITTSBURGH, P.A.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
DAE AVIATION ENTERPRISES,
CORP. D/B/A EMERSON
AVIATION, and AVCO
CORPORATION,
Defendants

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil no. 2:11-cv-217-NT

ORDER ON MOTION TO STAY
Defendant DAE Aviation, d/b/a Emerson Aviation, (hereafter “Emerson
Aviation”) moves to stay this case pending resolution of a declaratory judgment
action it has brought in New Hampshire against its insurer. For the reasons that
follow, the Court DENIES the motion.
This wrongful death suit was filed on May 27, 2011. The Complaint alleges
that Stephen Cardelli, Jr. died when, on June 13, 2009, a Cessna airplane he was
flying experienced engine failure and crashed. The Plaintiffs, Mr. Cardelli’s widow
and an insurance company that is subrogated to the rights of the decedent and his
company, claim that Emerson Aviation failed to detect the fracture of an oil cooler
return line attach nipple in an inspection of the Cessna it performed prior to this
flight. The Plaintiffs also assert product liability claims against AVCO Corporation,

1

the manufacturer of the failed engine, which allegedly overhauled and installed the
engine in the Cessna in 2002.
On December 14, 2011, Emerson Aviation moved to stay this case pending
the resolution of a declaratory judgment action it filed in New Hampshire state
court against its insurance company and that company’s agents on November 22,
2011. That proceeding was removed, and is currently before the federal District
Court for the District of New Hampshire, docket number 1:11-cv-00554-LM. In the
New Hampshire case, Emerson Aviation requests a declaration that its insurer is
required to provide coverage of up to $2 million to Emerson Aviation for any
liability it may have in this case.
Emerson Aviation argues that resolution of the coverage question would
enable or at least encourage the parties to settle this case, and it submits that a
stay would conserve court and party resources. The parties’ discovery plan in the
New Hampshire case indicates that they expect to be trial-ready at the beginning of
April, 2013.
Absent a statute or rule to the contrary, this Court possesses an inherent
power to stay pending litigation for prudential reasons, including when the
management

of

its

docket

reasonably

requires

such

intervention.

See

Microfinancial, Inc. v. Premier Holidays Intern., Inc., 385 F.3d 72, 77 (1st Cir. 2004)
(citing Landis v. North Amer. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254-55, 57 S.Ct. 163, 165-66, 81
L.Ed. 153 (1936)), Marquis v. F.D.I.C., 965 F.2d 1148, 1154 (1st Cir. 1992) (citing,
inter alia, Landis, 299 U.S. at 254-55 (other citations omitted)). The First Circuit
has cautioned, however, that a stay cannot be cavalierly dispensed: there must be
2

good cause for its issuance; it must be reasonable in duration; and the Court must
ensure that competing equities are weighed and balanced. Marquis, 965 F.2d at
1155.
No doubt settlement discussions among the parties in this case are
complicated by the question of how much insurance coverage is available to
Emerson Aviation. However, the parties’ assessment of liability and damages,
which are ordinarily central to settlement discussions, and which form the subject
matter of this suit, will be hampered by staying discovery in this case. Some amount
of discovery, and along with it, the parties’ and the Court’s resources are likely to be
required for the parties to effectively stake out their positions on liability and
damages, irrespective of the question of insurance coverage. When other
considerations are weighed in the balance, including the Plaintiffs’ right and desire
to proceed in this litigation without undue delay, co-Defendant AVCO Corporation’s
objection to this motion, and the prospect of a delay of over a year, the requested
stay appears inadvisable.
Accordingly, the Defendant’s motion for a stay of proceedings pending
resolution of its declaratory judgment action is DENIED.
SO ORDERED.
/s/ Nancy Torresen
United States District Judge
Dated this 22nd day of March, 2012.

3