Fairbank Reconstruction Corp. v. Greater Omaha Packing Company, Inc.

Filing 35

DECISION AND ORDER denying 27 Motion to Stay. Signed by Hon. Jeremiah J. McCarthy on 2/21/14. (DAZ)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
_____________________________________
FAIRBANK RECONSTRUCTION CORP.,
d/b/a FAIRBANK FARMS,
Plaintiff,

DECISION AND ORDER
13-CV-00907(S)(M)

v.
GREATER OMAHA PACKING
COMPANY, INC.,
Defendant.
___________________________________
Before me is defendant’s motion [27]1 to stay proceedings pending the outcome of
a related action pending in the United States District Court for the District of Maine entitled
Grater Omaha Packing Company, Inc. v. Fairbank Reconstruction Corp. d/b/a Fairbank Farms,
Case No. 2:13-cv-00436-GZS (the “Maine action”). Oral argument was held on February 20,
2014 [33]. For the following reasons, the motion is denied, without prejudice to renewal at a
later date.2

ANALYSIS
“A court may decide in its discretion to stay civil proceedings pursuant 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. The party seeking a stay bears

1

2

Bracketed references are to CM/ECF docket entries

“A motion for a stay of proceedings is nondispositive.” Ace American Insurance Co. v.
Carolina Roofing, Inc., 2010 WL 2649918, *1, n. 2 (W.D.N.Y. 2010).

the burden of establishing its need.” Nautilus Neurosciences, Inc. v. Fares, 2013 WL 3009488,
*2 (S.D.N.Y. 2013).
“Whether the court should do so is based on several factors including: (1) the
private interests of the plaintiffs in proceeding expeditiously with the civil litigation as balanced
against the prejudice to the plaintiffs if delayed; (2) the private interests of and burden on the
defendants; (3) the interests of the courts; (4) the interests of persons not parties to the civil
litigation; and (5) the public interest.” Ace American, 2010 WL 2649918, *1.
Having considered these factors, I conclude that a stay is not warranted at this
time. In the first place, although defendant commenced the Maine action on November 22, 2013
(defendant’s motion [27], ¶2), at the scheduling conference held before me three days later [18],
defendant agreed to the deadlines of the Case Management Order (“CMO”) [19] without
suggesting that it intended to seek a stay of proceedings in this case based on the pendency of the
Maine action.
Secondly, defendant’s repeated challenges to the judgments which form the basis
of plaintiff’s claims have been rejected (see Long v. Fairbank Reconstruction Corp., 701 F.3d 1
(1st Cir. 2012) and Jones v. Fairbank Reconstruction Corp, 2013 WL 6019294 (D. Me. 2013)),
and plaintiff’s motion to dismiss the Maine action is pending. Without prejudging that motion, it
does not appear to me that defendant’s chances of ultimate success in the Maine action are strong
enough to warrant disrupting the CMO deadlines to which it previously agreed.3

3

At oral argument the parties agreed to minor modifications to the CMO necessitated by
the pendency of this motion. Those modifications are reflected in an Amended CMO [34].

-2-

CONCLUSION
For these reasons, defendant’s motion for a stay of proceedings [27] is denied,
without prejudice to renewal based upon further developments in the Maine action.
Dated: February 21, 2014
SO ORDERED

/s/ Jeremiah J. McCarthy
JEREMIAH J. MCCARTHY
United States Magistrate Judge

-3-