Johnston et al v. Intermountain Healthcare et al

Filing 131

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER finding as moot 110 Motion to Stay; overruling objections and adopting Magistrate Judge's 98 Order in its entirety; awarding Intermountain Healthcare $22,599.12 in attorneys' fees and costs against attorney Jared M. Allebest; awarding ASL Communications $1,470 in attorneys' fees against attorney Jared M. Allebest. The overdue attorneys' fees awards and awards incurred in attempting to secure compliance with 71 Order shall be entered as judgments against Mr. Allebest. Signed by Judge David Nuffer on 11/20/19 (alt)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH
ZACH JOHNSTON; BARBIE JOHNSTON;
and ROES I-X,
Plaintiffs,
v.
INTERMOUNTAIN HEALTHCARE;
INTERMOUNTAIN NORTH OGDEN
CLINIC; MCKAY-DEE HOSPITAL; ASL
COMMUNICATIONS; and ROES I-X,

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
ORDER
(1) ADOPTING MAGISTRATE
JUDGE’S RULING & ORDER,
(2) FINDING AS MOOT MOTION
TO STAY,
AND
(3) AWARDING FEES AND COSTS
TO DEFENDANTS AGAINST
PLAINTIFFS’ COUNSEL
Case No. 1:18-cv-0003-DN-DBP

Defendants.
District Judge David Nuffer

On September 11, 2019, United States Magistrate Judge Dustin B. Pead entered an order
directing Plaintiffs’ counsel, Jared Allebest, to pay overdue attorneys’ fees awards to Defendants
Intermountain 1 and ASL Communication’s (“ASLC”) by September 21, 2019. 2 The September
11th Order also imposed additional monetary sanctions against Mr. Allebest for his failure to
comply with the June 28th Order 3 that awarded attorneys’ fees to Intermountain and ASLC. 4
Plaintiffs objected to portions of Judge Pead’s September 11th Order, and seek a stay of
the September 11th Order pending the conclusion of this litigation. 5 However, Plaintiffs’

1

“Intermountain” refers to Defendants Intermountain Healthcare, Intermountain North Ogden Clinic, and
McKay-Dee Hospital. Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint identifies these entities as defendants. Second
Amended Complaint, docket no. 51, filed Nov. 28, 2018. However, the correct name is IHC Health Services, Inc., of
which the named entities are dbas.

2

Ruling & Order (“September 11th Order”) at 6, docket no. 98, filed Sept. 11, 2019.

3

Ruling & Order (“June 28th Order”), docket no. 71, filed June 28, 2019.

4

September 11th Order at 6.

5

Motion to Stay Magistrate’s Order for Attorney Fees (“Motion to Stay”), docket no. 110, filed Sept. 20, 2019.

arguments are untimely, lack merit, and are, otherwise, moot. Judge Pead’s analysis and
conclusions in the September 11th Order are not clearly erroneous or contrary to law. 6 Therefore,
Plaintiffs’ objections to the September 11th Order 7 are OVERRULED. The September 11th
Order 8 is ADOPTED in its entirety. Plaintiffs’ Motion to Stay9 is MOOT. And Intermountain
and ASLC are awarded the attorneys’ fees and costs requested in their Second Fee Affidavits. 10

Contents
BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................................ 2
DISCUSSION ................................................................................................................................. 6
Plaintiffs’ arguments regarding the propriety of the June 7th Order and June 28th Order are
untimely and have been waived .............................................................................. 6
Judge Pead’s analysis and conclusions in the September 11th Order are not clearly
erroneous or contrary to law ................................................................................... 7
Plaintiffs’ request for a stay of the September 11th Order pending the conclusion of this
litigation is moot ................................................................................................... 11
Intermountain and ASLC are awarded the attorneys’ fees and costs requested in their
Second Fee Affidavits, and the fee awards will be entered as a judgment against
Mr. Allebest .......................................................................................................... 11
ORDER ......................................................................................................................................... 14

BACKGROUND
On June 7, 2019, Judge Pead entered an order requiring Mr. Allebest to pay
Intermountain and ASLC’s attorneys’ fees incurred in connection with Plaintiffs’ motion for an
extension of time to submit expert reports. 11 In the June 7th Order, Judge Pead found that Mr.

6

28 U.S.C. § 636(a); FED. R. CIV. P. 72(a).

7

Motion to Stay at 5-15.

8

Docket no. 98, filed Sept. 11, 2019.

9

Docket no. 110, filed Sept. 20, 2019.

10

Second Fee Affidavit of David C. Castleberry (“Intermountain’s Second Fee Affidavit”), docket no. 99, filed Sept.
12, 2019; ASL Communications’ Second Affidavit of Attorneys Fees (“ASLC’s Second Fee Affidavit”), docket
no. 106, filed Sept. 16, 2019 (collectively, “Second Fee Affidavits”).
11

Ruling & Order (“June 7th Order”) at 4, docket no. 66, filed June 7, 2019.

2

Allebest “ha[d] not provided any additional reports, refused to extend the courtesy of an
extension to opposing counsel, declined to provide specific details surrounding [Plaintiffs’]
expert’s delays and failed to request an extension prior to the cut-off date.” 12 The June 7th Order
directed Intermountain and ASLC to submit affidavits supporting their fees by June 17, 2019. 13
Neither Plaintiffs nor Mr. Allebest timely objected to the June 7th Order.
On June 28, 2019, following the submission of Intermountain and ASLC’s fee
affidavits, 14 Judge Pead entered an order awarding fees against Mr. Allebest in the amount of
$3,184.00 for Intermountain, and $1,325.00 for ASLC. 15 The June 28th Order directed Mr.
Allebest to pay the fee awards by July 18, 2019. 16 Neither Plaintiffs nor Mr. Allebest sought an
extension of time or to stay enforcement of the fee awards prior to the deadline, or timely
objected to the June 28th Order.
Mr. Allebest did not pay the fee awards by the July 18, 2019 deadline. Rather, on July 19,
2019, Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal regarding the June 28th Order. 17 That same day, Mr.
Allebest corresponded with opposing counsel and took the position that Intermountain and
ASLC were “prematurely hounding [him] regarding [their] attorney fees when the deadline for
appeals ha[d] not yet passed.” 18 Mr. Allebest stated:
I have been busy on other matters and was out of town for legal work and have
not been able to respond to emails.

12

Id.

13

Id.

14

Fee Affidavit of David C. Castleberry, docket no. 67, filed June 11, 2019; ASL Communications’ Affidavit of
Attorneys Fees, docket no. 69, filed June 13, 2019.
15

June 28th Order at 2.

16

Id.

17

Notice of Appeal, docket no. 72, filed July 19, 2019.

18

ASL Communications’ Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion to Stay Magistrate’s Order for Attorney Fees at Ex. A
(“July 18-19, 2019 Email Chain”), docket no. 113, filed Oct. 4, 2019.

3

I am open to talking to you . . . but quite frankly, I think it would be prudent to
wait until the trial is over before you ask to collect [attorneys’ fees]. I am
confident [Plaintiffs] will prevail on this matter and the Defendants will be paying
my client’s fees plus other costs and damages.
If I were you, I would hold off on this issue until it is fully resolved at trial.
Pressuring me into paying you right now is not going to work because I am
confident we will prevail in this matter. 19
Thereafter, Intermountain and ASLC filed motions for sanctions. 20 Plaintiffs responded. 21
And on September 11, 2019, Judge Pead entered an order granting the motions. 22 In the
September 11th Order, Judge Pead found that Mr. Allebest’s unilateral decision to not comply
with the June 28th Order was deliberate, willful, and in bad faith. 23 Judge Pead also found that
Mr. Allebest’s conduct was abusive of the judicial process and caused Intermountain and ASLC
to engage in unnecessary motion practice and incur additional and unnecessary expenses. 24
Judge Pead concluded that Plaintiffs’ appeal did not impact Mr. Allebest’s compliance with the
June 28th Order, 25 and that Mr. Allebest was not substantially justified in failing to comply with
the June 28th Order. 26
Judge Pead declined to enter additional sanctions that would directly impact the merits of
the case. 27 Instead, the September 11th Order directed Mr. Allebest to pay the overdue fees award

19

Id.

20

Motion for Sanctions, docket no. 75, filed July 25, 2019; ASL Communications’ Motion for Sanctions, docket
no. 76, filed July 29, 2019.
21

Memorandum in Opposition to Defendant’s Motion for Sanctions (“Response to Sanctions Motions”), docket
no. 77, filed July 31, 2019.
22

September 11th Order.

23

Id. at 5.

24

Id.

25

Id. at 3-4.

26

Id. at 5.

27

Id. at 6.

4

by September 21, 2019. 28 Judge Pead also ordered Mr. Allebest to pay Intermountain and
ASLC’s attorneys’ fees incurred in attempting to secure compliance with the June 28th Order,
and Intermountain’s fees and costs incurred in connection with the depositions of Plaintiffs’
expert. 29 The September 11th Order directed Intermountain and ASLC to file affidavits in support
of their fees. 30 Judge Pead also warned Plaintiffs that additional sanctions, including possible
terminating sanctions, would enter for further willful failures to comply with court orders. 31
On September 12 and 16, 2019, Intermountain and ASLC filed their Second Fee
Affidavits. 32 Intermountain requested $22,599.12 in attorneys’ fees and costs. 33 ASLC requested
$1,470 in attorneys’ fees. 34
On September 20, 2019, the day before Mr. Allebest was ordered to pay the overdue fee
awards, Plaintiffs filed a Motion to Stay. 35 The Motion to Stay is not expressly set forth as an
objection to the September 11th Order. However, it includes many of the same arguments raised
in response to Intermountain and ASLC’s motions for sanctions, 36 and assigns error to the
September 11th Order (as well as the June 7th Order and June 28th Order). 37 Plaintiffs also argued

28

Id.

29

Id.

30

Id.

31

Id.

32

Intermountain’s Second Fee Affidavit; ASLC’s Second Fee Affidavit.

33

Intermountain’s Second Fee Affidavit ¶ 12 at 4. Intermountain’s request does not include fees owed to Plaintiffs’
experts for their time associated with the depositions. Id.
34

ASLC’s Second Fee Affidavit ¶ 8 at 2.

35

Docket no. 110, filed Sept. 20, 2019.

36

Id. at 5-15; Response to Sanctions Motions at 5-9.

37

Motion to Stay at 5-15.

5

that equity demands the payment of attorneys’ fees be stayed pending the conclusion of this
litigation. 38
Plaintiffs Motion to Stay does not address the reasonableness of Intermountain and
ASLC’s Second Fee Affidavits, other than unsupported and conclusory assertions that Plaintiffs
and Mr. Allebest lack the ability to pay. 39 And neither Plaintiffs nor Mr. Allebest timely filed a
separate brief expressly objecting to the September 11th Order, or challenging the reasonableness
of Intermountain and ASLC’s Second Fee Affidavits. Plaintiffs’ Motion to Stay is construed as
both an objection to the September 11th Order and a motion to stay the September 11th Order.
DISCUSSION
Plaintiffs’ arguments regarding the propriety of the June 7th Order
and June 28th Order are untimely and have been waived
As an initial matter, in a continuing effort to revive and rehash untimely arguments,
Plaintiffs’ Motion to Stay asserts facts and raises arguments regarding the propriety of the June
7th Order and the June 28th Order. 40 These arguments include: that fee awards should not have
been entered because the delays in expert discovery were beyond Mr. Allebest’s control; that
Judge Pead failed to analyze whether Intermountain and ASLC suffered prejudice; that the fee
awards were ordered to be paid in an inequitable, unreasonable, and unjust time frame; and that
Plaintiffs and Mr. Allebest lack the ability to pay the fee awards. 41

38

Id. at 11-15.

39

Id. at 13-14; Affidavit in Support of Motion to Stay Magistrate’s Order for Attorney Fees (“Mr. Allebest’s
Affidavit”) ¶¶ 6-8, docket no. 110-1, filed Sept. 20, 2019.
40

Id. at 5-15.

41

Id.

6

It has already been determined that Plaintiffs and Mr. Allebest waived assignment of
error to the June 7th Order and June 28th Order by failing to timely object. 42 This determination
will not be reconsidered. This attempt to re-raise facts and arguments that have been rejected is
one of many examples of Plaintiffs and Mr. Allebest’s disregard of procedural rules and court
orders in this case as a whole. Plaintiffs’ arguments regarding the propriety of the June 7th Order
and June 28th Order are untimely and have been waived. 43
Judge Pead’s analysis and conclusions in the September 11th Order
are not clearly erroneous or contrary to law
Judge Pead’s September 11th Order involved the straightforward issue of Mr. Allebest’s
failure to comply with the June 28th Order’s directive that he pay Intermountain and ASLC’s fee
awards by July 18, 2019. 44 There was no dispute that Mr. Allebest did not comply with the June
28th Order. 45 The only questions were whether Mr. Allebest’s conduct was substantially justified
and, if not, the appropriate sanction. 46
Plaintiffs raise several objections to Judge Pead’s analysis and conclusions in September
11th Order, including:
•

Mr. Allebest complied with the June 7th Order’s directives regarding expert
discovery;

•

Mr. Allebest’s noncompliance was not deliberate, willful, or in bad faith;

•

Mr. Allebest’s noncompliance was substantially justified;

•

the September 11th Order fails to address prejudice to the parties, and
Intermountain and ASLC have not suffered prejudice;

42

Memorandum Decision and Order Denying Motion for Partial Final Judgment 3-4, docket no. 88, filed Aug. 26,
2019; September 11th Order at 4.
43

FED. R. CIV. P. 72(a).

44

September 11th Order at 2-5.

45

Id. at 5.

46

FED. R. CIV. P. 37(b)(2)(C).

7

•

the fee awards were ordered to be paid in an inequitable, unreasonable, and
unjust time frame; and

•

trial will reveal that Plaintiffs’ claims have merit, and Plaintiffs should not run
the risk of terminating sanctions if Mr. Allebest fails to timely pay the fee
awards. 47

Review has been completed of those portions of the September 11th Order to
which Plaintiffs’ assign error, including the record that was before Judge Pead and the
reasoning set forth in the September 11th Order. 48 The September 11th Order includes
findings supporting the conclusion that Mr. Allebest’s conduct was not substantially
justified. 49 As just sanctions, the September 11th Order directed Mr. Allebest to pay: (i)
the overdue fee awards by September 21, 2019; (ii) Intermountain and ASLC’s attorneys’
fees incurred in attempting to secure compliance with the June 28th Order; and
(iii) Intermountain’s fees and costs incurred in connection with the depositions of
Plaintiffs’ expert. 50 Plaintiffs were also warned that additional sanctions would enter for
further willful failures to comply with court orders. 51 Judge Pead’s analysis and
conclusions in the September 11th Order are not clearly erroneous or contrary to law. 52
Mr. Allebest’s compliance with the June 7th Order’s directives regarding expert
discovery are irrelevant to his compliance with the June 28th Order. Compliance with
some court orders does not excuse or justify a failure to comply with other court orders.

47

Motion to Stay at 5-15.

48

28 U.S.C. § 636(a); FED. R. CIV. P. 72(a).

49

September 11th Order at 3-5.

50

Id. at 6.

51

Id.

52

28 U.S.C. § 636(a); FED. R. CIV. P. 72(a). Plaintiffs and Mr. Allebest have waived assignment of error to any
portion of the September 11th Order that was not specifically objected to in Plaintiffs’ Motion to Stay. FED. R. CIV.
P. 72(a).

8

The record also shows that despite the clear directive for Mr. Allebest pay the fee
awards by July 18, 2019, 53 Mr. Allebest unjustifiably refused to comply. After the
deadline had passed, Mr. Allebest expressed to opposing counsel that they were
prematurely seeking payment of the fee awards because he believed Judge Pead erred in
awarding fees; he had filed an appeal; and he was confident Plaintiffs would prevail at
trial. 54 But neither Plaintiffs nor Mr. Allebest timely acted to challenge the fee awards.
They did not seek an extension of time or a stay of enforcement regarding the fee awards
prior to the deadline for Mr. Allebest to pay the fee awards, or pending their appeal. They
did not file an appeal until after the deadline to pay the fee awards had passed. 55 And
they did not timely object to either the June 7th Order or June 28th Order. Moreover, Mr.
Allebest’s beliefs regarding the merits of Plaintiffs’ claims are irrelevant to the fee
awards entered as sanctions against him personally.
This record demonstrates that Mr. Allebest unilaterally chose to disregard the
June 28th Order without legal justification. 56 Mr. Allebest’s noncompliance was not
substantially justified. It was deliberate, willful, and in bad faith. Additionally, Mr.
Allebest’s conduct necessitated the filing of Intermountain and ASLC’s motions for
sanctions to secure compliance with the June 28th Order. This prejudiced Intermountain
and ASLC by causing them to incur additional and unnecessary expenses. 57 Therefore,

53

June 28th Order at 2.

54

July 18-19, 2019 Email Chain.

55

Notice of Appeal.

56
“[A]ttorneys and parties [must] be fully aware that they must bear the burden of sanctions to the conclusion of the
case and appeal on the merits of the fully adjudicated case.” Howard v. Mail-Well Envelope Co., 90 F.3d 433, 437
(10th Cir. 1996) (quoting D&H Marketers, Inc. v. Freedom Oil & Gas, Inc., 744 F.2d 1443, 1446 (10th Cir. 1984)
(en banc)).
57

Second Fee Affidavits.

9

entry of additional monetary sanctions against Mr. Allebest (rather than Plaintiffs)
proportionate to the expenses his abusive conduct caused was warranted and just. 58 It was
also proper to warn Plaintiffs and Mr. Allebest that further willful violations of court
orders would lead to additional sanctions.
Regarding the overdue fee awards, other than Mr. Allebest’s unsupported and
conclusory assertions, 59 Plaintiffs have presented no evidence that the fee awards were
ordered to be paid in an inequitable, unreasonable, and unjust time frame. Mr. Allebest
was initially given 20 days to pay the fee awards. 60 By failing to comply with the June
28th Order, Mr. Allebest effectively obtained an additional 65 days to pay the fee awards
by the September 21, 2019 deadline. 61 Eighty-five days is not an inequitable,
unreasonable, and unjust time frame for Mr. Allebest to have paid the fee awards. And
regardless, the filing of Plaintiffs’ Motion to Stay has, in effect, given Mr. Allebest two
months of additional time beyond the September 21, 2019 deadline.
Because Judge Pead’s analysis and conclusions in the September 11th Order are
not clearly erroneous or contrary to law, 62 Plaintiffs’ objections to the September 11th
Order 63 are OVERRULED. Therefore, the September 11th Order 64 is ADOPTED in its
entirety.

58

FED. R. CIV. P. 37(b)(2)(C).

59

Mr. Allebest’s Affidavit ¶¶ 6-8.

60

June 28th Order at 2.

61

September 11th Order at 6.

62

28 U.S.C. § 636(a); FED. R. CIV. P. 72(a). Plaintiffs and Mr. Allebest have waived assignment of error to any
portion of the September 11th Order that was not specifically objected to in Plaintiffs’ Motion to Stay. FED. R. CIV.
P. 72(a).
63

Motion to Stay at 5-15.

64

Docket no. 98, filed Sept. 11, 2019.

10

Plaintiffs’ request for a stay of the September 11th Order
pending the conclusion of this litigation is moot
Plaintiffs argue that equity demands the payment of attorneys’ fees be stayed pending the
conclusion of this litigation. 65 This argument is MOOT. Summary judgment has entered in favor
of Intermountain on Plaintiffs’ claims. 66 All claims as to all parties have now been resolved, and
a final judgment shall enter forthwith.
Intermountain and ASLC are awarded the attorneys’ fees and costs
requested in their Second Fee Affidavits, and the fee awards
will be entered as a judgment against Mr. Allebest
The only remaining issues are Mr. Allebest’s payment of the overdue fee awards, and
determination of the amount of the additional monetary sanctions entered against Mr. Allebest in
the September 11th Order.
The overdue fee awards are in the amount of $3,184.00 for Intermountain, and $1,325.00
for ASLC. 67 Mr. Allebest has had nearly five months to pay the fee awards since entry of the
June 28th Order. It is appropriate that the overdue fee awards now be entered as a judgment
against Mr. Allebest.
On September 12 and 16, 2019, Intermountain and ASLC filed their Second Fee
Affidavits in support of the additional monetary sanctions entered against Mr. Allebest in the
September 11th Order. 68 To date (over two months later), neither Plaintiffs nor Mr. Allebest have
responded to the reasonableness of the attorneys’ fees and costs requested in the Second Fee

65

Motion to Stay at 11-15.

66

Memorandum Decision and Order Granting Motion for Summary Judgment, docket no. 126, filed Nov. 20, 2019.

67

June 28th Order at 2.

68

Intermountain’s Second Fee Affidavit; ASLC’s Second Fee Affidavit.

11

Affidavits, except bald assertions that Plaintiffs and Mr. Allebest lack the ability to pay. 69 The
time for further response has passed.
To determine a reasonable attorneys’ fee, a “lodestar” figure is arrived at “by multiplying
the hours . . . counsel reasonably spent on the litigation by a reasonable hourly rate.” 70 Factors
for determining the reasonableness of the hours billed for a given task or to prosecute the
litigation as a whole include: the complexity of the case; the number of reasonable strategies
pursued; the responses necessitated by the maneuvering of the other side; and the potential
duplication of services. 71
Intermountain requests $22,599.12 in attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in attempting to
secure compliance with the June 28th Order and in connection with the depositions of Plaintiffs’
expert. 72 ASLC requests $1,470 in attorneys’ fees incurred in attempting to secure compliance
with the June 28th Order. 73 Intermountain and ASLC support their requests with affidavits of
counsel, which identifies counsels’ experience and hourly billing rates, and an itemization of the
work performed and the time spent in performing the work. 74
After careful review of Intermountain and ASLC’s Second Fee Affidavits, and
consideration of the complexity of the case, the work performed and the record, under the

69

Motion to Stay at 13-14; Mr. Allebest’s Affidavit ¶¶ 6-8.

70

Case v. Unified Sch. Dist. No. 233, Johnson Cty., Kan., 157 F.3d 1243, 1249 (10th Cir. 1998) (internal quotations
omitted).
71

Id. at 1250.

72

Intermountain’s Second Fee Affidavit ¶ 12 at 4.

73

ASLC’s Second Fee Affidavit ¶ 8 at 2.

74

Second Fee Affidavits.

12

appropriate legal standards, the requested attorneys’ fees and costs in the amount of $22,599.12
for Intermountain, 75 and $1,470 for ASLC, 76 are reasonable.
Plaintiffs and Mr. Allebest’s unsupported and conclusory assertions that they lack the
ability to pay77 are insufficient to justify reduction of the reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs
Intermountain and ASLC request. Therefore, Intermountain is awarded $22,599.12 in attorneys’
fees and costs against Mr. Allebest, which represents the reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs
Intermountain incurred in attempting to secure compliance with the June 28th Order and in
connection with the depositions of Plaintiffs’ expert. ASLC is awarded $1,470 in attorneys’ fees
against Mr. Allebest, which represents the reasonable attorneys’ fees ASLC incurred in
attempting to secure compliance with the June 28th Order. These awards shall be entered as a
judgment against Mr. Allebest.

75

Intermountain’s Second Fee Affidavit ¶ 12 at 4.

76

ASLC’s Second Fee Affidavit ¶ 8 at 2.

77

Motion to Stay at 13-14; Mr. Allebest’s Affidavit ¶¶ 6-8.

13

ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1.

Plaintiffs’ objections to the September 11th Order 78 are OVERRULED. The

September 11th Order 79 is ADOPTED in its entirety.
2.

Plaintiffs’ Motion to Stay 80 is MOOT.

3.

The overdue attorneys’ fees awards 81 shall be entered as a judgment in favor of

Intermountain and ASLC and against Mr. Allebest.
4.

Intermountain is awarded $22,599.12 in attorneys’ fees and costs against Mr.

Allebest, which represents the reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs Intermountain incurred in
attempting to secure compliance with the June 28th Order and in connection with the depositions
of Plaintiffs’ expert. This award shall be entered as a judgment in favor of Intermountain and
against Mr. Allebest.
5.

ASLC is awarded $1,470 in attorneys’ fees against Mr. Allebest, which represents

the reasonable attorneys’ fees ASLC incurred in attempting to secure compliance with the June
28th Order. This award shall be entered as a judgment in favor of ASLC and against Mr.
Allebest.
Signed November 20, 2019.
BY THE COURT

________________________________________
David Nuffer
United States District Judge
78

Motion to Stay at 5-15.

79

Docket no. 98, filed Sept. 11, 2019.

80

Docket no. 110, filed Sept. 20, 2019.

81

June 28th Order at 2.

14