Kitchin et al v. Bridgeton Landfill, LLC

Filing 100

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the plaintiffs and defendants' Joint Motion for Stay of Proceedings 99 is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties shall file a Joint Status Report with the Court not later than June 6, 20 22, and every sixty (60) days thereafter. The parties shall also file a Joint Status Report within ten (10) days of the United States Supreme Court's decision on the petition for writ of certiorari related to Banks, et al. v. Cotter Corp., et al., Case No. 4:20CV1227 JAR (E.D. Mo.); In re Cotter Corp. (N.S.L.), 22 F.4th 788 (8th Cir. 2022). (Status Report due by 6/6/2022.) Signed by District Judge Catherine D. Perry on 04/26/2022. (ANP)

Case: 4:18-cv-00672-CDP Doc. #: 100 Filed: 04/26/22 Page: 1 of 3 PageID #: 1311

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
JOHN C. KITCHIN, JR., et al.,
on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated,

)
)
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
v.
)
)
BRIDGETON LANDFILL, LLC,
)
et al.,
)
)
Defendants;
)
_________________________________ )
)
BRIDGETON LANDFILL, LLC,
)
)
Third-Party Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
COTTER CORPORATION, N.S.L.,
)
)
Third-Party Defendant.
)

No. 4:18 CV 672 CDP

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the me on plaintiffs and defendants’ Joint Motion for
Stay of Proceedings (ECF 99) pending the United States Supreme Court’s decision
on a petition for writ of certiorari anticipated to be filed in a related action, Banks,
et al. v. Cotter Corp., et al., Case No. 4:20CV1227 JAR (E.D. Mo.); In re Cotter
Corp. (N.S.L.), 22 F.4th 788 (8th Cir. 2022). I will grant the motion for stay.
The central issue in Banks is whether the Price-Anderson Act (PAA) applies

Case: 4:18-cv-00672-CDP Doc. #: 100 Filed: 04/26/22 Page: 2 of 3 PageID #: 1312

to the plaintiffs’ claims in that action, which would provide the district court
federal subject-matter jurisdiction over the claims.1 Likewise, in this case, a
central issue before me – and squarely raised in defendants’ pending motion for
judgment on the pleadings – is whether the factual allegations giving rise to
plaintiffs’ state-law claims make the claims subject to the PAA, which would
thereby preempt any recovery plaintiffs seek under state law. Although my
exercise of jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ claims is not an issue given that the Eighth
Circuit has already decided that federal subject-matter jurisdiction exists under the
Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA), Kitchin v. Bridgeton Landfill, LLC, 3 F.4th
1089 (8th Cir. 2021), cert. denied, 142 S. Ct. 1111 (2022), I nevertheless agree
with the parties that the Supreme Court’s decision in Banks “would affect the
landscape of this case,” including the potential question of whether plaintiffs can
proceed on their claims.
This Court has inherent power to grant a stay “in order to control its docket,
conserve judicial resources, and provide for a just determination of the cases
pending before it.” Contracting Nw., Inc. v. City of Fredericksburg, 713 F.2d 382,

Banks originated in state court and was removed to federal court upon a defendant’s filing of a
third-party complaint that specifically invoked the PAA against the third-party defendants.
Although the PAA provided the basis for federal subject-matter jurisdiction over the third-party
complaint, the district court decided that the PAA did not apply to plaintiffs’ claims, which were
pleaded under only state law. It therefore declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over
those claims, severed them from the remainder of the removed case, and remanded them back to
state court. On appeal, the Eighth Circuit reversed, holding that the PAA applied to plaintiffs’
claims. It is from this decision that the Banks plaintiffs anticipate filing a petition for writ of
certiorari.
-21

Case: 4:18-cv-00672-CDP Doc. #: 100 Filed: 04/26/22 Page: 3 of 3 PageID #: 1313

387 (8th Cir. 1983). In determining whether to grant a stay, the Court weighs the
potential hardship to the parties and interests of judicial economy. St. Louis Heart
Ctr. v. Athenahealth, Inc., No. 4:15-CV-1215 AGF, 2015 WL 6777873, at *4 (E.D.
Mo. Nov. 4, 2015). In this case, plaintiffs and defendants jointly request a stay,
and a Supreme Court decision on the issue presented by Banks could substantially
affect the litigation for the reasons set out above. After careful consideration, I
find that granting a stay will serve the public interest and promote judicial
economy without prejudicing any party.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the plaintiffs and defendants’ Joint
Motion for Stay of Proceedings [99] is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties shall file a Joint Status
Report with the Court not later than June 6, 2022, and every sixty (60) days
thereafter. The parties shall also file a Joint Status Report within ten (10) days of
the United States Supreme Court’s decision on the petition for writ of certiorari
related to Banks, et al. v. Cotter Corp., et al., Case No. 4:20CV1227 JAR (E.D.
Mo.); In re Cotter Corp. (N.S.L.), 22 F.4th 788 (8th Cir. 2022).

CATHERINE D. PERRY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated this 26th day of April, 2022.
-3-