Greater Michigan Plumbing and Mechanical Contractors Association, Inc. et al v. Precision Power and Gas LLC

Filing 31

OPINION and ORDER Granting Plaintiffs' 28 Motion to Lift Temporary Stay of Proceedings and Requiring Defendants to Respond to Amended Complaint. Response to the Amended Complaint is due by 6/5/2018. Signed by District Judge Linda V. Parker. (RLou)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
GREATER MICHIGAN PLUMBING AND
MECHANICAL CONTRACTORS
ASSOCIATION, INC., et al.,
Plaintiffs,
Civil Case No. 17-10533
Honorable Linda V. Parker

v.
PRECISION PIPELINE, LLC, et al.,
Defendants.
_______________________________/

OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO LIFT
TEMPORARY STAY OF PROCEEDINGS AND REQUIRING
DEFENDANTS TO RESPOND TO AMENDED COMPLAINT
This is an action seeking fringe benefit contributions Defendants allegedly
owe Plaintiffs pursuant to the terms of collective bargaining agreements. On
October 23, 2017, this Court signed a stipulated order temporarily staying the
proceedings pending Plaintiffs’ completion of an audit of certain payroll records
Defendants agreed to provide. (ECF No. 27.) Plaintiffs now seek to lift the
temporary stay, contending that Defendants have failed to cooperate in the audit.
(ECF No. 28.) Defendants filed a response to Plaintiffs’ motion to lift the stay,
arguing that they in fact have cooperated and provided Plaintiffs the payroll
records and other documents requested. (ECF No. 29.) In reply, Plaintiffs
disagree. (ECF No. 30.) According to Plaintiffs, Defendants have failed to

provide sufficient payroll records to conduct a meaningful audit and to clarify the
content or meaning of records produced. (Id.)
“[T]he 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.” Landis v. North Am. Co., 299
U.S. 248, 254 (1936). “[T]he entry of such an order ordinarily rests with the sound
discretion of the District Court.” Ohio Envtl. Council v. U.S. Dist. Court, S.D. of
Ohio, E. Div., 565 F.2d 393, 396 (6th Cir. 1997). “Logically, the same court that
imposes a stay of litigation has the inherent power and discretion to lift the stay.”
Canady v. Erbe Elektromedizin GmbH, 271 F. Supp. 2d 64, 74 (D.D.C. 2002)
(citations omitted).
When deciding whether to impose or lift a stay, it is “clear that a court must
tread carefully… since a party has a right to a determination of its rights and
liabilities without undue delay.” Ohio Envtl. Council, 565 F.2d at 396. Moreover,
“[w]hen circumstances have changed such that the court’s reasons for imposing a
stay no longer exist or are inappropriate, the court may lift the stay.” Canady, 271
F. Supp. 2d at 74 (citation omitted).
Here, the Court was willing to enter a temporary stay of the proceedings in
light of the parties’ apparent agreement to independently resolve the matter
through the completion of an audit to determine the amounts Defendants owe
2

under the CBAs. It is neither efficient nor necessary for the Court to wade into the
parties’ current disagreement regarding whether Defendants have satisfied their
duties with respect to the audit. Plaintiffs believe Defendants have not provided
the information necessary to complete a meaningful audit and thus the reason for
staying the proceedings has disappeared. In other words, the ability of the parties
to resolve this dispute voluntarily now seems unlikely.
As such, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ motion to lift the temporary stay
and the stay is LIFTED. Defendants shall file a response to Plaintiffs’ Amended
Complaint within fourteen (14) days of this Opinion and Order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ Linda V. Parker
LINDA V. PARKER
U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: May 22, 2018
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to counsel of
record and/or pro se parties on this date, May 22, 2018, by electronic and/or U.S.
First Class mail.
s/ R. Loury
Case Manager

3