Pressley et al v. Bird Brain, Inc. et al

Filing 48

ORDER granting 39 Motion to Stay; granting 41 Motion to Stay. Signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis Howell on 2/26/14. (nll)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
ASHEVILLE DIVISION
1:13cv60
SANDRA PRESSLEY and DEAN
PRESSLEY,

)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
BIRD BRAIN, INC. and WAL-MART
)
STORES EAST, LP,
)
)
Defendants.
)
___________________________________ )

ORDER

Pending before the Court are the Motions to Stay [# 39 & # 41]. Defendant
Wal-Mart Stores East, LLP (“Wal-Mart”) and Plaintiffs both move to stay this
action pending resolution of the insurance coverage issues in a declaratory
judgment case that is also pending before the Court. Defendant Bird Brain, Inc.
(“Bird Brain”) also consents to the relief sought in the Motions to Stay. Third-Party
Defendant Susie Gibson, however, opposes staying this case. Upon a review of the
record, the parties’ briefs, and the relevant legal authority, the Court GRANTS the
motions [# 39 & # 41].
I.

Analysis

District Courts have the inherent power to stay proceedings. See Williford v.
Armstrong World Indus., Inc., 715 F.2d 124, 127 (4th Cir. 1983); see also Johnson
1

v. Duke Energy Retirement Cash Balance Plan, No. 1:13CV156, 2013 WL
5462383, at *1 (M.D.N.C. Sept. 30, 2013) (unpublished). “The 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. North Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254, 57 S. Ct.
163, 166 (1936). In determining whether a stay is warranted, the Court must weigh
the competing interests to maintain an even balance. Id.; Williford, 715 F.2d at
127. “The party seeking a stay must justify it by clear and convincing
circumstances outweighing potential harm to the party against whom it is
operative.” Williford, 715 F.2d at 127.
Both Plaintiffs and Defendants favor a stay of this action pending the
resolution of the related declaratory judgment action, which involves a
determination as to whether an insurance policy issued by AIX Specialty Insurance
Company for Defendant Bird Brain provides coverage for the claims asserted by
Plaintiffs in this action. A determination as to insurance coverage is particularly
important in this case because Defendant Bird Brain is insolvent and has little to no
assets other than the insurance policy. As such, a determination as to coverage
under the insurance policy will significantly limit the scope of discovery, the
potential for settlement, and the general direction of these proceedings. Although
Third-Party Defendant Gibson has a legitimate interest in having this case heard on
2

the merits in an expeditious manner, a stay of these proceedings until the District
Court resolves the insurance coverage issue is, at most, a minor inconvenience for
Third-Party Defendant Gibson. The Court finds that the most efficient means of
resolving this case is to stay these proceedings pending resolution of the insurance
coverage issue in the related case. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the motions
[# 39 & #41].
II.

Conclusion

The Court GRANTS the motions [# 39 & #41] and STAYS this case
pending further Order of the Court. Any party may move to lift the stay ten (10)
days after the District Court resolves the issue of insurance coverage in the related
declaratory judgment action.
Signed: February 26, 2014

3