BeBetter Health, Inc. v. Employee-Services.net, Inc. et al

Filing 15

ORDER STAYING CASE pending a plea or jury verdict in the criminal matter 3:14-cr-199-FDW; FURTHER ORDERED that the parties file a joint status report as to the status of the criminal proceedings within ninety (90) daysfrom the date of this Order and every ninety (90) days thereafter. Signed by Chief Judge Frank D. Whitney on 1/20/2015. (eef)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
CHARLOTTE DIVISION
DOCKET NO. 3:14-cv-00162-FDW
BeBETTER HEALTH, INC.,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
EMPLOYEE-SERVICES.NET,
INC.; )
WILLIAM J. STAZ; JAMES W. STAZ; )
TINA STAZ; and TIMOTHY J. STAZ,
)
)
Defendants.
)

ORDER

THIS MATTER is before the Court sua sponte concerning the status of this case. The
Court is aware that two Defendants in the instant case were recently indicted by the grand jury
for violations of federal law. See United States v. James William Staz and William James Staz,
3:14-cv-199-FDW (W.D.N.C.).
“The power to stay proceedings is incidental to the power inherent
in every court to control the disposition of the cases on its docket
with economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for
litigants. Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254, 57 S. Ct. 163,
81 L. Ed. 153 (1936). “Because of the frequency with which civil
and regulatory laws overlap with criminal laws, American
jurisprudence contemplates the possibility of simultaneous or
virtually simultaneous parallel proceedings and the Constitution
does not mandate the stay of civil proceedings in the face of
criminal proceedings.” Ashworth v. Albers Med., Inc., 229 F.R.D.
527, 530 (S.D. W. Va. 2005). Stays generally are not granted
before an indictment has issued … .
Maryland v. Universal Elections, Inc., 729 F.3d 370, 379-80 (4th Cir. 2013); see also United
States v. Any and All Assets of That Certain Business Known as Shane Co., 147 F.R.D. 99, 101
(M.D.N.C. 1993) (“[t]he public has an interest in law enforcement which may, under proper
circumstances, be given priority over concurrent civil proceedings.”); cf. United States v.

Georgia Pacific Corp., 562 F.2d 294, 296 (4th Cir. 1977) (noting that a motion to stay
proceedings is committed to the sound discretion of the court). In SEC v. Dresser, the Circuit
Court for the District of Columbia stated:
Other than where there is specific evidence of agency bad faith or
malicious governmental tactics, the strongest case for deferring
civil proceedings is where a party under indictment for a serious
offense is required to defend a civil or administrative action
involving the same matter. The noncriminal proceeding, if not
deferred, might undermine the party’s Fifth Amendment privilege
against self-incrimination, expand rights of criminal discovery
beyond the limits of Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 16(b),
expose the basis of the defense to the prosecution in advance of
criminal trial, or otherwise prejudice the case.
628 F.2d 1368, 1375 (D.C. Cir. 1980).
The Court has reviewed the criminal indictment and the civil complaint in the case at bar
and finds that these cases are related and substantially similar so that the same evidentiary
material likely will be involved and that the government’s case may be compromised.
Accordingly, pursuant to the law set forth herein, the Court finds, in its discretion, that a stay
pending resolution of the criminal matter is warranted.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Court hereby STAYS this matter pending a plea
or jury verdict in the criminal matter 3:14-cr-199-FDW. The Court hereby directs ALL parties to
file a joint status report as to the status of the criminal proceedings within ninety (90) days
from the date of this Order and every ninety (90) days thereafter, so as to keep this Court
apprised of the status of the criminal case on this civil docket.
Additionally, the Court notes that in a related case, Carolina Material Handling Services,
Inc., et al. v. Employee-Services.net, Inc., et al., 3:11-cv-00176-FDW-DSC (W.D.N.C.), the
plaintiffs notified this Court of an ordered entered in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the

Western District of North Carolina, resulting in an automatic stay of proceedings against the
defendants in that case. The Court requests that Plaintiffs promptly notify the Court of any
similar bankruptcy court orders or proceedings involving the parties involved in the present
action.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Signed: January 20, 2015