Iannacone v. Hanson

Filing 16

ORDER granting 10 Motion to Stay (Written Opinion). Signed by Senior Judge David S. Doty on 12/13/2013. (PJM)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Civil No. 13-2991(DSD)
In Re Belinda Hanson:

Bankruptcy 13-33447
Chapter 7 Case

Debtor.
----------------------------------Michael J. Iannacone, Trustee
Appellant,
ORDER

v.
Belinda Hanson,
Appellee.

This matter is before the court upon the motion by appellant
Michael Iannacone to stay the instant bankruptcy appeal. Iannacone
argues that a stay is warranted, as the Supreme Court has recently
granted certiorari on an identical case.

See In re Clark, 714 F.3d

559 (7th Cir. 2013), cert. granted sub nom. Clark v. Rameker, 82
U.S.L.W. 3118 (U.S. Nov. 26, 2013) (No. 13-299).

Appellee Belinda

Hanson opposes a stay and argues that because of “the uncertain
health

and

employment

circumstances

facing

the

appellee,

she

respectfully requests that the court proceed with this matter,
rather than wait for the United States Supreme Court to make a
decision in the Clark case.”

Mem. Opp’n 2.

“[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.”

Emerson Elec. Co. v. Black & Decker Mfg. Co.,

606 F.2d 234, 237 n.6 (8th Cir. 1979) (citation and internal
quotation marks omitted).

“[A]n applicant for a stay has the

burden of showing specific hardship or inequity if he or she is
required to go forward.”

Jones v. Clinton, 72 F.3d 1354, 1364 (8th

Cir. 1996) (citation omitted).

“[I]n determining the propriety of

a stay, the Court should weigh the competing interests of the
parties, and the hardship or inequity a party may suffer if a stay
is granted.”
2885587, at
Moreover,
resources.

Robinson v. Bank of Am., N.A., No. 11-2284, 2012 WL
*1

the

(D.
court

Minn.

July

13,

2012)

(citation

considers

the

conservation

of

omitted).
judicial

See KK Motors, Inc. v. Brunswick Corp., No. 98-2307,

1999 WL 246808, at *1 (D. Minn. Feb. 23, 1999).
Here, the court has weighed the interests of the appellant,
the appellee and the court, and finds that a stay pending the
outcome of Clark is warranted.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED

that the motion to stay [ECF No. 10] is granted.
Dated:

December 13, 2013
s/David S. Doty
David S. Doty, Judge
United States District Court

2