Smith v. Inkster, City of et al

Filing 224

ORDER DENYING CITY OF INKSTERS MOTION FOR STAY [#165]. Signed by District Judge Gershwin A. Drain. (TBan)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

KEVIN SMITH,
Plaintiff,
Case No.: 12-15440
Honorable Gershwin A. Drain
v.

CITY OF INKSTER, et al.,
Defendants.
___________________________/
ORDER DENYING CITY OF INKSTER’S MOTION FOR STAY [#165]
I.

INTRODUCTION
Presently before the Court is the Defendant City of Inkster’s Motion for Stay

of Proceedings Pending Decision by Michigan Court of Appeals, filed on July 29,
2016. The motion is fully briefed and a hearing was held on October 25, 2016.
For the reasons that follow, the Court will deny the City’s Motion for Stay.

‐1‐ 

II.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND
The facts of this matter have been set forth in this Court’s prior opinions.

The Court will therefore only discuss those facts pertinent to the instant motion.
Plaintiff is a Caucasian male who worked for the City as a police officer of various
ranks from October 1995 through June 2008. On June 18, 2008, Plaintiff was
informed that he would be transferred to another department or division as part of a
reorganization of the police department. Plaintiff claims that the transfer caused
him stress and he became totally and permanently disabled.
Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit in December of 2012 alleging that
Defendants denied him a duty disability pension because of his race and in
retaliation for engaging in protected activity in violation of Title VII of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §2000e, et seq. and 42 U.S.C. 1983.
Plaintiff also alleged state law claims of intentional infliction of emotional
distress and for civil conspiracy, as well as under Michigan’s Elliot Larsen Civil
Rights Act, MICH. COMP. LAWS § 37.2101 et seq. The Court declined to exercise
supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims and dismissed those
claims without prejudice on May 7, 2013. Plaintiff filed an action in state court
raising the same claims in the Wayne County Circuit Court.

‐2‐ 

In March of 2015, this Court granted summary judgment to the Defendants
on Plaintiff’s Title VII and section 1983 claims, concluding that res judicata
precluded Plaintiff’s claims, he was collaterally estopped from arguing he was
permanently disabled and failed to identify a constitutionally protected property
interest in the denial of his application for a duty disability pension. See Dkt. No.
150. On July 8, 2015, the state court likewise granted summary judgment to the
Defendants finding that Plaintiff’s claims could have been raised in his earlier
lawsuit, but was barred by the doctrine of res judicata. Plaintiff’s appeal of the
state court’s decision is currently pending before the Michigan Court of Appeals.
On appeal, the Sixth Circuit concluded that it was error for this Court to
dismiss Plaintiff’s claims and remanded the action for further proceedings.
III.

LAW & ANALYSIS
A.

Motion for Stay

The City and Mayor Hampton move for entry of an Order staying this
proceeding pending the decision of the Michigan Court of Appeals. Defendants
argue that the Sixth Circuit and this Court must follow the decision of the
Michigan Court of Appeals on the issue fundamental to this case, namely the
preclusive effect of Plaintiff’s previous state lawsuit on the present lawsuit.
“A court may stay proceedings in its sound discretion based on its inherent

power to control its docket.” Wheelabrator Clean Water Sys. v. Old Kent Bank &
Trust Co., No. 1:93-CV-1016, 1995 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2330, *1 (W.D. Mich. Jan.
30, 1995)(citing American Life Ins. Co. v. Stewart, 300 U.S. 203, 81 L. Ed. 605, 57
S. Ct. 377 (1937)); Landis v. N.Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254, 57 S. Ct. 163, 81 L.
Ed. 153 (1936)(“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. How this can be done
calls for the exercise of judgment, which must weigh competing interests and
maintain an even balance.”)
While the Court possesses the inherent authority to stay proceedings, it
“must tread carefully in granting a stay of proceedings, since a party has a right to
a determination of its rights and liabilities without undue delay.” Ohio Envtl.
Council v. U.S. Dist. Ct., 565 F.2d 393, 396 (6th Cir. 1977) (citing Landis, 299
U.S. at 254-55).
The party seeking the stay must demonstrate “a pressing need for delay and
that neither the other party or the public will suffer harm from the stay.”
Wheelabrator, 1995 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2330, at *2. Courts should consider the
following factors when a stay is requested: the need for a stay, the balance of the
relatives harms to the

parties and the public, and the promotion of judicial

economy by avoiding duplicative litigation. Id. (citing Landis, 299 U.S. at 255).
4 

As to the first and third factors, Defendants argue that these are parallel
proceedings involving the same issue. Conflicting results have already occurred
with the state court issuing a decision contrary to the result reached by the Sixth
Circuit in the instant case.

Defendants argue “a protracted jury trial will be

avoided if the Michigan Court of Appeals affirms [the state court judge’s]
holding.” As to the second factor, Defendants maintain that Plaintiff will not be
harmed because the stay will be short. Conversely, if a stay is not entered,
Defendants will be forced to proceed with a jury trial that ultimately may be
unnecessary.
Upon consideration of the Landis factors, the Court concludes that a stay is
unwarranted under the circumstances.

As an initial matter, the parties have

recently filed a Motion to Adjourn the Trial in this matter. They seek to postpone
trial until sometime after June 1, 2017. It is likely that the Michigan Court of
Appeals will reach a decision prior to this date. Moreover, Defendants’ present
motion appears to rely on the theory that the Michigan Court of Appeals will
affirm the holding of the state court judge, thus creating a conflict with the Sixth
Circuit’s decision. The Court is not inclined to stay this matter on such speculation.
Accordingly, Defendants’ Motion for Stay [#165] is DENIED.

5 

SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 27, 2016

/s/Gershwin A. Drain
GERSHWIN A. DRAIN
United States District Judge

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
Copies of this Order were served upon attorneys of record on
October 27, 2016, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.
/s/ Tanya Bankston
Deputy Clerk 

6