GOLDEN GATE NATIONAL SENIOR CARE, LLC et al v. SPOONE

Filing 23

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 Cambria County Court of Common Pleas. The Clerk of Court sha ll 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. It is further Ordered that the Initial Rule 16 Case Management Conference scheduled for 1/25/2018, at 11:30 a.m. is CANCELLED, 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 JOHNSTOWN, LP,
d/b/a GOLDEN LIVING CENTER RICHLAND; GPH JOHNSTOWN, LP; GPH
JOHNSTOWN GP, LLC; GGNSC
JOHNSTOWN 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-180
JUDGE KIM R. GIBSON

)
)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

)
)

ETHEL M. SPOONE, Executrix for the
Estate o/LARRY A. SPOONE, 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, 15, 16) and ripe for disposition.
For the reasons that follow, Defendant's Motion to Stay will be GRANTED.
II.

Relevant Factual and Procedural Background
Larry A. Spoone ("Mr. Spoone"), deceased, was a resident at the skilled nursing

home known as Golden Gate Living Center - Johnstown ("the Facility") in Cambria

County, Pennsylvania. (ECF No. 10 cir 1.) Defendant contends that Mr. Spoone suffered
several injuries and/or illnesses during his residency at the Facility because of the Facility's
negligence and/or recklessness. (Id. cir 1.)
On October 6, 2017, Defendant1 filed a Complaint in the Court of Common Pleas of
Cambria County, Pennsylvania, against all Plaintiffs in the instant action.

(Id. cir 2.)

Defendant's state-court Complaint alleges claims for injuries suffered by Mr. Spoone
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.
10-1.)
Separately, Plaintiffs commenced the instant action before this Court by filing their
Complaint on October 9, 2017, asking this Court to compel arbitration pursuant to a
purported arbitration agreement allegedly signed by Mr. Spoone at the time of his
admission to the Facility. (ECF No. 1; ECF No. 10 cir 3.)
Defendant filed the instant Motion to Stay and a Motion to Dismiss on December
12, 2017. (ECF Nos. 8, 10.) Plaintiffs responded in opposition on January 2, 20i8. (ECF Nos.
15, 16.)

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

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

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.
(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).

3

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 to
seek the identical remedy sought here, i.e., a court order compelling arbitration, in the
action before the Cambria County Court of Common Pleas. Defendant initiated the statecourt action 3 days before Plaintiffs initiated the instant action before this Court. In this
first-filed state action in which Defendant's underlying causes of action are being pursued,
Plaintiffs have the opportunity to file preliminary objections and seek to compel the
resolution of the dispute through arbitration-the same remedy Plaintiffs seek from this
Court.
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 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.

4

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 has not yet even held an Initial Rule 16 Conference or issued an Initial Scheduling
Order. The parties have expended minimal resources in the instant action.
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 Cambria 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,

5

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, little
or no case-specific discovery has occurred, no trial date has been set, and the Court has not
yet even held an Initial Rule 16 Conference or issued an Initial Scheduling Order. 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 Cambria County Court
of Common Pleas.
The length of the stay is appropriate because it lasts no longer than the state court's
prompt resolution of the same factual and legal issues regarding the enforceability of the
arbitration agreement raised herein. Thus, the final factor also weighs in favor of entering
a stay.

6

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
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.

7

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
GOLDEN GATE NATIONAL SENIOR
CARE, LLC; GGNSC JOHNSTOWN, LP,
d/b/a GOLDEN LIVING CENTER RICHLAND; GPH JOHNSTOWN, LP; GPH
JOHNSTOWN GP, LLC; GGNSC
JOHNSTOWN 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-180
JUDGE KIM R. GIBSON

)
)
)

)

Plaintiffs,

)
)

v.

)
)

ETHEL M. SPOONE, Executrix for the
Estate o/LARRY A. SPOONE, 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 ST AYED
pending the disposition of further proceedings in the Cambria 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.
It is FURTHER ORDERED that the Initial Rule 16 Case Management Conference

scheduled for January 25, 2018at11:30 a.m. is CANCELLED.

BY THE COURT:

KIM R. GIBSON
UNITED ST A TES DISTRICT JUDGE