GOLDEN GATE NATIONAL SENIOR CARE, LLC et al v. HENDERSHOT-BROWN

Filing 22

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER granting 10 Motion to Stay. Accordingly, it is Ordered that this case is in all respects hereby STAYED pending the disposition of further proceedings in the Somerset County Court of Common Pleas. The Clerk of Court sh all mark this case as ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSED, subject to being reopened for cause shown upon the motion of any party or by the Court on its own motion, and as more fully stated in said Memorandum Opinion and Order. Signed by Judge Kim R. Gibson on 1/19/2018. (dlg)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
GOLDEN GATE NATIONAL SENIOR
CARE, LLC; GGNSC MEYERSDALE, LP,
d/b/a GOLDEN LIVING CENTER MEYERSDALE, LP; GGNSC MEYERSDALE
GP, LLC; GPH MEYERSDALE, LP; GPH
MEYERSDALE GP, LLC; GGNSC
HOLDINGS, LLC; GGNSC EQUITY
HOLDINGS, LLC; GGNSC
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES, LLC;
GGNSC CLINICAL SERVICES, LLC; and
GOLDEN GATE ANCILLARY, LLC,

Case No. 3:17-cv-164
JUDGE KIM R. GIBSON
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiffs,

)
)

v.

)

)

HOPE N. HENDERSHOT-BROWN,

)

Administratrix for the Estate of JOHN R.
HENDERSHOT, deceased,

)

Defendant.

)

)
)

MEMORANDUM OPINION
I.

Introduction
Before the Court is Defendant's Motion to Stay Proceedings Pending Resolution of

Collateral Action in State Court. (ECF No. 10.) Defendant's Motion is fully briefed (ECF
Nos. 10, 12, 13) and ripe for disposition.
For the reasons that follow, Defendant's Motion to Stay will be GRANTED.
II.

Relevant Factual and Procedural Background
John R. Hendershot ("Mr. Hendershot"), deceased, was a resident at the skilled

nursing home known as Golden Gate National Senior Center Meyersdale, LP ("the

Facility") in Somerset County, Pennsylvania. (ECF No. 10 at 1.) Defendant contends that
Mr. Hendershot suffered several injuries and/or illnesses during his residency at the Facility
because of the Facility's negligence and/or recklessness. (Id. at 1-2.)
On August 25, 2017, Defendant1 filed a Complaint in the Court of Common Pleas of
Somerset County, Pennsylvania, against all Plaintiffs in the instant action.

(Id. at 2.)

Defendant's state-court Complaint alleges claims for injuries suffered by Mr. Hendershot
pursuant to Pennsylvania's Survival Statute, 42 Pa. Stat. and Cons. Stat. Ann.§ 8302, and
Pennsylvania's Wrongful Death Act, 42 Pa. Stat. and Cons. Stat. Ann.§ 8301. (Id.; ECF No.
10-2.)
Separately, Plaintiffs commenced the instant action before this Court by filing their
Complaint on September 13, 2017, asking this Court to compel arbitration pursuant to a
purported arbitration agreement allegedly signed by Mr. Hendershot at the time of his
admission to the Facility. (ECF No. 1; ECF No. 10 at 2.)
Defendant filed the instant Motion to Stay and a Motion to Dismiss on November
17, 2017. (ECF Nos. 8, 10.) Plaintiffs responded in opposition on December 12, 2017. (ECF
Nos. 12, 13.)
Based on the record before this Court and the undisputed, updated information
provided by counsel for all parties at the Initial Rule 16 Conference held on January 18,
2018, the Court finds that the related suit filed in the Somerset County Court of Common
Pleas is an ongoing suit that includes all of the parties to the matter before this Court and

For the purposes of this Memorandum Opinion and the accompanying Order, "Plaintiffs" refers to
the above-captioned Plaintiffs in the instant matter before this Court, and "Defendant," likewise,
refers to the above-captioned Defendant in the instant matter before this Court.

1

2

fully encompasses the same factual circumstances before this Court. (See ECF Nos. 10, 12,
13, 20.) Moreover, this Court finds that the state court denied Plaintiffs' motion to stay the
state court action, ordered a 90-day period of discovery regarding the enforceability of the
arbitration agreement that is the subject matter of the instant matter before this Court, and
plans to rule on Plaintiff's preliminary objections regarding the arbitration agreement after
the close of this 90-discovery period and the submission of briefs/argument. (See ECF Nos.
10, 12, 13, 20.)
In essence, the identical legal and factual issues regarding the enforceability of the
arbitration agreement are presently before both the Somerset County Court of Common
Pleas in the form of Plaintiffs' preliminary objections and before this Court due to Plaintiffs'
Complaint.
III.

Applicable Law
"[T]he 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 (1936); see also

Commw. Ins. Co. v. Underwriters, Inc., 846 F.2d 196, 199 (3d Cir. 1988) (quoting Landis, 299
U.S. at 254). As such, "the power to stay an action, in non-mandatory stay cases, is firmly
within the discretion of the court." First Am. Title Ins. Co. v. Maclaren, L.L.C., No. 10-CV363, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 31508, at *13 (D. Del. Mar. 9, 2012) (citing Cost Bros., Inc. v.

Travelers Indem. Co., 760 F.2d 58, 60 (3d Cir. 1985)).
In determining whether a stay of the litigation is appropriate, a court must balance
the interests favoring a stay against the interests frustrated by the granting of a stay. Id.
3

(citing Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma v. United States, 124 F.3d 1413, 1416 (Fed. Cir. 1997)). In
doing so, a court should consider the following factors: (1) whether a stay would unduly
prejudice or present a clear tactical disadvantage to the non-moving party; (2) whether
denial of the stay would create a clear case of hardship or inequity for the moving party; (3)
whether a stay would simplify the issues and the trial of the case; and (4) whether discovery
is complete and whether a trial date has been set. Akishev v. Kapustin, 23 F: Supp. 3d 440,
446 (D.N.J. 2014). A court may also consider (5) the length of the requested stay. Structural

Group, Inc. v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., No. 1:07-CV-1793, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 82266, at *13
(M.D. Pa. Oct. 16, 2008).

The "party requesting a stay bears the burden of showing that the circumstances
justify an exercise" of the Court's discretion to issue a stay. Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418,
433-34 (2009).
IV.

Discussion
In weighing the competing interests presented here, the Court concludes that a stay

is warranted in the instant matter. The Court will separately address each factor applicable
to a motion to stay.

A. Undue Prejudice to the Non-Moving Party
A stay would not unduly prejudice Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs have the opportunity and,
in fact, are already seeking the identical remedy sought here, i.e., a court order compelling
arbitration, in the action before the Somerset County Court of Common Pleas. (See ECF
Nos. 10, 12, 13, 20.) Defendant initiated the state-court action 19 days before Plaintiffs
initiated the instant action before this Court. (See ECF Nos. 10, 12, 13, 20.) In the state-court
4

action, Plaintiffs have also already filed preliminary objections based on the same
arbitration agreement underlying the instant matter, participated in oral argument
regarding those preliminary objections on January 10, 2018, began a 90-day discovery
period on the arbitration agreement, and, following discovery, will argue the identical
issues raised before this Court. (See ECF Nos. 10, 12, 13, 20.)
Plaintiffs scarcely suffer undue prejudice through the adjudication of the identical
factual and legal issues before a qualified state court that is already handling the underlying
claims. The litigation before the state court began 19 days prior to Plaintiffs filing their
Complaint with this Court, and the state court has already held oral arguments and entered
an order providing for a 90-day period of discovery concerning the arbitration agreement.
The grant of a stay in this action prevents duplicative state and federal proceedings on the
identical factual and legal issues regarding the arbitration agreement. Thus, rather than
causing Plaintiffs undue prejudice, granting a stay saves the parties from expending the
time, energy, and money necessary to litigate identical issues in front of separate forums.
This first factor weighs in favor of entering a stay.
B. Hardship or Inequity to the Moving Party

If this Court denied the Motion to Stay, Defendant would suffer hardship because,
as just discussed, Defendant would be required to expend the time, energy, and money to
litigate wholly overlapping factual and legal issues before two forums. In the matter before
this Court, little or no case-specific discovery has occurred, no trial date has been set, and
the Court only recently issued an Initial Scheduling Order on January 18, 2018. The parties
have expended minimal resources in the instant action.
5

In contrast, the state action has advanced through oral arguments and into
discovery.

Therefore, denial of the Defendant's Motion to Stay would cause undue

hardship on Defendant through the unnecessary simultaneous litigation of the same issues
in multiple forums. This second factor weighs in favor of granting the Motion to Stay.
C. Simplification of Issues

With respect to the third factor, the Court must consider '"whether a stay would
simplify the issues and the trial of the case."' Akishev, 23 F. Supp. 3d at 448 (quoting Actelion
Pharms., Ltd. v. Apotex Inc., No. 12-CV-5743, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 135524, at*15 (D.N.J. Sept.

6, 2013)). A stay would allow the state court to decide whether the arbitration agreement
requires Defendant's underlying claims to proceed through arbitration.

Indeed, the

resolution of the issue of arbitration by the Somerset County Court of Common Pleas would
appear to obviate the need to continue the proceedings before this Court entirely because
those issues pending before the state court and pending before this Court are identical.
Consequently, a stay simplifies the issues before this Court by allowing the original
forum to resolve the identical issues first-presented to it, rather than having simultaneous,
potentially inconsistent rulings from separate forums. Thus, the third factor weighs in
favor of entering a stay.

D. Status of the Litigation
With respect to the fourth factor, "the Court evaluates Defendants' motion for a stay
in accordance with the scope of presently completed discovery and the scheduling of a trial
date." Akishev, 23 F. Supp. 3d at 448. As discussed supra, in the case before this Court, no
trial date has been set, and the Court only recently issued an Initial Scheduling Order on
6

January 18, 2018. The parties have expended minimal resources in the instant action. In
contrast, the state action has advanced through oral arguments and into discovery.
Therefore, the fourth favor weighs in favor of granting Defendant's Motion to Stay.

E. Length of the Requested Stay
The length of the requested stay aligns with the length of the state court proceeding
on the identical issues that have already progressed further than the same proceedings
before this Court. While the stay the Court enters here does not have a specific date of
termination, this stay is not indefinite.

Rather, this stay is timed to expire with the

resolution of the enforceability of the arbitration agreement by the Somerset County Court
of Common Pleas.
The state court has already held oral argument, set a 90-day discovery period, and
will accept briefs and arguments-all on the same factual and legal issues presented to, but
not yet considered by, this Court. The length of the stay is appropriate because it lasts no
longer than the state court's already-ordered period of discovery and subsequent prompt
resolution of the enforceability of the arbitration agreement. Thus, the final factor also
weighs in favor of entering a stay.

V.

Conclusion
In sum, all five factors weigh in favor of this Court granting Defendant's Motion to

Stay. Moreover, this Court believes that the entry of a stay in this matter is appropriate to
permit proceedings germane to the question of the arbitration of the state court claims and
defenses to proceed in the state court based on the principles of comity and federalism, to
avoid the potential of inconsistent or conflicting dispositions, and to effectively and
7

efficiently use the finite resources of the parties and the state and federal judiciaries to
expeditiously and fairly adjudicate the issues raised by the parties. See Golden Gate Nat'l

Senior Care LLC v. Leiner, 2:16-cv-1301, at ECF No. 21 (W.D. Pa. Feb. 2, 2017) (Hornack, J.).
Therefore, for the reasons set forth above, Defendant's Motion to Stay will be granted.
An appropriate order follows.

8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
GOLDEN GATE NATIONAL SENIOR
CARE, LLC; GGNSC MEYERSDALE, LP,
d/b/a GOLDEN LIVING CENTER MEYERSDALE, LP; GGNSC MEYERSDALE
GP, LLC; GPH MEYERSDALE, LP; GPH
MEYERSDALE GP, LLC; GGNSC
HOLDINGS, LLC; GGNSC EQUITY
HOLDINGS, LLC; GGNSC
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES, LLC;
GGNSC CLINICAL SERVICES, LLC; and
GOLDEN GATE ANCILLARY, LLC,

Case No. 3:17-cv-164
JUDGE KIM R. GIBSON
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiffs,

)
)

v.

)
)

HOPE N. HENDERSHOT-BROWN,
Administratrix for the Estate of JOHN R.
HENDERSHOT, deceased,

)
)
)
)

Defendant.

)

ORDER
NOW, this 19th day of January 2018, upon consideration of Defendant's Motion to
Stay Proceedings Pending Resolution of Collateral Action in State Court (ECF No. 10), and
in accordance with the reasons set forth in the accompanying Memorandum Opinion, it is

HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant's Motion to Stay (ECF No. 10) is GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that this case is in all respects hereby STAYED
pending the disposition of further proceedings in the Somerset County Court of Common
Pleas. The Clerk of Court shall mark this case as ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSED, subject

to being reopened for cause shown upon the motion of any party or by the Court on its own
motion.

BY THE COURT:

KIM R. GIBSON
UNITED ST A TES DISTRICT JUDGE