Gray et al v. FedEx Ground Package System, Inc.

Filing 165

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff Reginald Grays Motion for Stay ECF No. 161 is DENIED. Signed by Honorable John A. Ross on 6/1/2012. (RAK)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION

REGINALD GRAY, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
FEDEX GROUND PACKAGE
SYSTEM, INC.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 4:06-CV-00422-JAR

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Reginald Gray’s Motion for Stay [ECF No.
161]. Plaintiff requests a stay of all pending matters in his case pending a ruling from the United
States Bankruptcy Court on his Motion to Reopen Estate in order to amend his statement of
financial affairs to include his ownership of the instant case against FedEx. Plaintiff does not
explain what effect, if any, the reopening of his bankruptcy case will have on the current
proceedings. Defendant FedEx Ground Package System (“FedEx”) opposes the motion. Plaintiff
did not file a reply memorandum. Plaintiff’s motion for stay presents a matter within the Court’s
discretion. Furminator, Inc. v. Ontel Products Corp., 2006 WL 2711642, *2 (E.D. Mo. Sept. 21,
2006). In this instance, the Court concludes that a stay is not appropriate, particularly when the
motion was precipitated by Plaintiff’s own actions.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff Reginald Gray’s Motion for Stay [ECF No.
161] is DENIED.

Dated this 4th day of June, 2012.

_______________________________
JOHN A. ROSS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE