G.P.P., INC. v. SCHALL

Filing 14

ORDER granting 10 Motion to Stay. Defendant's Motion to Stay (Doc. 10 ) is GRANTED, and this case is STAYED pending the Michigan Court's resolution of the motions before it. By separate order, this Court will administratively close th is case, and it will remain administratively closed for the duration of the stay. As and when appropriate, either party may restore this action to the Court's active calendar upon application or by motion. Signed by Judge Cathy Bissoon on 4/10/14. (dcd)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
G.P.P., INC.,
Plaintiff,
v.
CHRISTOPHER SCHALL,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil Action No. 13-1270
Judge Cathy Bissoon

ORDER
Defendant’s Motion to Stay (Doc. 10) will be granted. This is the second of two cases
filed in federal court regarding the same subject matter. Compare Compl. (Doc. 1) with compl.
in Schall v. G.P.P., Inc., 2:13-cv-13517-GER-DRG (E. D. Mich. (Detroit)). The issues presented
in the two cases are sufficiently similar that the “first-filed” rule applies. See EEOC v. Univ. of
Pennsylvania, 850 F.2d 969, 971 (3d Cir. 1988) (rule “encourages sound judicial administration
and promotes comity among federal courts of equal rank,” and it allows court in second-filed suit
to enjoin proceedings when same parties and issues already are before another district court)
(citation to quoted source omitted). Although Plaintiff argues that Defendant’s filing in
Michigan constitutes an “improper anticipatory suit,” see Doc. 12 at 10-13, Defendant has raised
sufficient arguments to the contrary (see Doc. 13) that the issues properly should be resolved by
the Michigan Court in the first instance.
Accordingly, Defendant’s Motion to Stay (Doc. 10) is GRANTED, and this case is
STAYED pending the Michigan Court’s resolution of the motions before it. By separate order,
this Court will administratively close this case, and it will remain administratively closed for the

duration of the stay.1 As and when appropriate, either party may restore this action to the
Court’s active calendar upon application or by motion. See In re Arbitration Between
Philadelphia Elec. Co. v. Nuclear Elec. Ins., Ltd., 845 F. Supp. 1026, 1028 (S.D.N.Y. 1994)
(holding same).
IT IS OR ORDERED.

April 10, 2014

s\Cathy Bissoon
Cathy Bissoon
United States District Judge

cc (via ECF email notification):
All Counsel of Record

Administrative closings comprise a familiar way in which courts remove cases from their
active files without final adjudication. Penn West Assocs., Inc. v. Cohen, 371 F.3d 118, 127
(3d Cir. 2004) (citation and internal quotations omitted). Administrative closure is a docket
control device used by the Court for statistical purposes, and it does not prejudice the rights of
the parties in any manner. Honig v. Comcast of Georgia I, LLC, 537 F. Supp.2d 1277, 1290 n.8
(N.D. Ga. 2008).
1

2