Fields v. Bi-State Development Agency of the Missouri-Illinois Metropolitan District et al

Filing 112

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendant Eager Road's motion to stay # 106 and defendant Bi-State's motion to stay # 108 are GRANTED pending the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeal's decision in United States ex rel. Fi elds v. Bi-State Development Agency, etc., Appeal No. 15-3348. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Eager Road's motion for a telephonic hearing # 111 is DENIED as moot. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall administratively close this mat ter. The parties shall notify the Court of the resolution of Bi-State's appeal within ten (10) days of the date it is released. Further Court action in this matter will be determined after such notice.. Signed by District Judge Rodney W. Sippel on 10-29/15. (LGK)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
ex rel. Eric Fields,
Plaintiff,
vs.
THE BI-STATE DEVELOPMENT
AGENCY OF THE MISSOURI-ILLINOIS
METROPOLITAN DISTRICT, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 4:14 CV 1321 RWS

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

This matter is before me on defendant Eager Road Associates, LLC ("Eager Road")' s
Motion to Stay Litigation, Motion for Telephonic Hearing on its Motion to Stay Litigation, and
defendant Bi-State Development Agency of the Missouri-Illinois Metropolitan District ("BiState")'s Motion to Stay Litigation. As of today's date, Plaintiff/Relator Eric Fields has not filed
any opposition to the motions to stay, which would have been due under the Court's local.rules
by October 22, 2015, and October 24, 2015, respectively.
Defendants request that I stay this litigation and any discovery pending resolution of
Bi-State's immunity-based appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.
Bi-State's immunity-based appeal has triggered a stay of proceedings under the Collateral Order
Doctrine and under this Court's inherent authority to manage its cases. See Johnson v. Hay, 931
F.2d 456, 459 (8th Cir. 1991). Additionally, because the claims against Eager Road and Bi-State
are inextricably intertwined, allowing the proceedings to move forward between plaintiff/relator
and Eager Road would be an inefficient use of the parties' resources and potentially prejudicial
to Bi-State. As a result, I will grant the parties' motions to stay all proceedings pending a ruling

on Bi-State's appeal.
Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendant Eager Road's motion to stay #[106] and
defendant Bi-State's motion to stay #[108] are GRANTED pending the Eighth Circuit Court of
Appeal's decision in United States ex rel. Fields v. Bi-State Development Agency, etc., Appeal
No. 15-3348.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Eager Road's motion for a telephonic hearing #[111]
is DENIED as moot.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall administratively close this
matter. The parties shall notify the Court of the resolution of Bi-State's appeal within ten (10)
days of the date it is released. Further Court action in this matter will be determined after such
notice.

~RODNE

W.~

UNITEDSTATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated this 29th day of October, 2015.

2