736 Building Owner, LLC et al v. Regions Bank et al

Filing 28

ORDER granting 24 Motion to Stay Proceedings; finding as moot 27 Motion to Extend Deadline. Signed by Honorable David C. Bramlette, III on October 8, 2014. (AA)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
NORTHEN DIVISION
736 BUILDING OWNER, LLC;
CYTEC SOFTWARE SYSTEMS, INC.;
OSCAR DE LEON, individually
VS.

PLAINTIFFS

CIVIL ACTION NO: 3:14-cv-222-DCB-MTP

REGIONS BANK;
JOHN AND JANE DOES 1-5

DEFENDANTS

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO STAY PROCEEDING
This matter is before the Court on Defendant’s, Regions Bank,
Motion to Stay Proceedings [docket entry no. 24]. Defendant has
also filed a Motion to Extend Expert Designation Deadline [docket
entry no. 27]. Defendant wishes to stay the case pending this
Court’s resolution of previously filed Motion to Dismiss [docket
entry no. 9]. Having reviewed the motions, responses, and docket in
this case, the Court finds as follows:
“[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. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936).
“Granting a stay is within the court’s discretion and a stay is
appropriate when it serves the interests of judicial economy and
efficiency.” Hood ex rel. Miss. v. Microsoft Corp., 428 F. Supp. 2d
537, 541 (S.D. Miss. 2006). When ruling on a motion to stay
1

proceedings, a court must consider: “(1) hardship and inequity on
the moving party without a stay; (2) prejudice the non-moving party
will suffer if a stay is granted; and (3) judicial economy.”
Shemper v. B.P. Am., Inc., No. 2:10cv138, 2010 WL 2867849, at *1
(S.D. Miss. Jul. 19, 2010) (quoting Falgoust v. Microsoft Corp.,
No. CIV.A.00-0779, 2000 WL 462919, at *2 (E.D. La. Apr. 19, 2000)).
These factors weigh in favor of granting a stay in this matter.
Accordingly,
IT

IS

HEREBY

ORDERED

that

Defendant’s

Motion

to

Stay

Proceeding is GRANTED.
FURTHER ORDERED that all deadlines in the Case Management
Order are SUSPENDED.
FURTHER ORDERED that the parties are directed to contact the
chambers of the Magistrate Judge assigned to this case within ten
(10) days of the issuance of an order ruling on the Defendant’s
Motion to Dismiss.
FURTHER ORDERED that the Defendant’s Motion to Extend Expert
Designation Deadline is DENIED as MOOT.

SO ORDERED this the 8th day of October 2014.
/s/ David Bramlette
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2