Dutcher v. Bold Films et al
Filing
261
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER denying 244 Motion to Lift Stay. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that All deadlines in the current pretrial scheduling order are VACATED. The final pretrial conference scheduled for November 15, 2018, at 2:30 p.m. and the ten-day jury trial scheduled for December 3, 2018, at 8:30 a.m. are VACATED. Signed by Magistrate Judge Paul M. Warner on 11/8/2018. (mas)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH
CENTRAL DIVISION
RICHARD DUTCHER,
MEMORANDUM DECISION
AND ORDER
Plaintiff,
Case No. 2:15-cv-00110-DB-PMW
v.
BOLD FILMS LP, et al.,
Defendants.
District Judge Dee Benson
Chief Magistrate Judge Paul M. Warner
District Judge Dee Benson referred this case to Chief Magistrate Judge Paul M. Warner
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). 1 Before the court is Plaintiff Richard Dutcher’s
(“Dutcher”) motion to lift stay. 2 The court has carefully reviewed the written memoranda
submitted by the parties. Pursuant to Civil Rule 7-1(f) of the Rules of Practice for the United
States District Court for the District of Utah, the court has concluded that oral argument is not
necessary and will decide the motion on the basis of the written memoranda. See DUCivR
7-1(f).
On September 6, 2018, one of the named defendants in this case, Open Road Films, LLC
(“Open Road”), filed a petition for bankruptcy in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the
1
See docket no. 80.
2
See docket no. 244.
District of Delaware. 3 The same day, Open Road filed a notice of bankruptcy filing in this case. 4
As a result of that notice, this case was stayed. On October 14, 2018, Dutcher filed the motion to
lift stay currently before the court seeking to lift the stay as to all named defendants in this case
other than Open Road (collectively, the “Non-Bankruptcy Defendants”). The Non-Bankruptcy
Defendants oppose Dutcher’s motion.
“[T]he power to stay proceedings is incidental to the power inherent in every court to
control the disposition of the causes 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 TravelPass
Grp., LLC v. Benjamin & Bros., LLC, No. 2:17-cv-00247-JNP-PMW, 2017 WL 2841221, at *2
(D. Utah July 3, 2017). “The granting of [a] stay ordinarily lies within the discretion of the
district court.” Pet Milk Co. v. Ritter, 323 F.2d 586, 588 (10th Cir. 1963) (per curiam); see also
Trustees of Utah Carpenters’ & Cement Masons’ Pension Tr. v. Perry Olsen Family P’ship, No.
2:11-CV-593-TC-PMW, 2012 WL 1981522, at *3 (D. Utah June 1, 2012). When deciding to
exercise its inherent power to stay, the court considers: “(1) whether the stay would promote
judicial economy; (2) whether the stay would avoid possible inconsistent results; and (3) whether
the stay would not work undue hardship or prejudice against the plaintiff.” United States ex rel.
Cache Valley Elec. Co. v. Travelers Cas. & Sur. Co. of Am., No. 2:13-cv-01120-DN, 2015 WL
164064, at *3 (D. Utah Jan. 13, 2015) (quotations and citation omitted); see also TravelPass
Grp., LLC, 2017 WL 2841221, at *2.
3
See docket no. 243, Exhibit 1.
4
See docket no. 243.
2
In this case, lifting the stay as to the Non-Bankruptcy Defendants would not promote
judicial economy and has the potential of leading to inconsistent results. The Non-Bankruptcy
Defendants assert that the central issue in this case is the same with respect to both the
Non-Bankruptcy Defendants and Open Road. The Non-Bankruptcy Defendants further assert
that they and Open Road will rely upon the same witnesses, experts, and documents.
Importantly, Dutcher does not dispute either of those assertions. If the court were to lift the stay
as to the Non-Bankruptcy Defendants, it could lead to two trials in this case, one involving the
Non-Bankruptcy Defendants, and one involving Open Road. Such a result would lead to
unnecessary duplication of efforts for both the parties and the court and has the potential of
leading to inconsistent judgments.
The Non-Bankruptcy Defendants also correctly note that there are three pending motions
in this case concerning the exclusion of experts. 5 The Non-Bankruptcy Defendants argue that
the court should not decide those motions prior to lifting the stay as to Open Road because each
of those motions involve and directly impact the interests of Open Road. In response, Dutcher
contends that the court could decide those motions as to only the Non-Bankruptcy Defendants.
Although not explicitly stated, it appears that Dutcher believes that the court could decide those
motions as to the Non-Bankruptcy Defendants and reserve a decision on them as to Open Road
for a later date. Again, such an approach would lead to an unnecessary duplication of efforts for
both the parties and the court, as well as the risk of inconsistent results.
5
See docket nos. 150, 151, 157.
3
The court concludes that the first two factors weigh heavily in favor of keeping the stay
in place. As to the final factor, the court acknowledges that leaving the stay in place imposes
some inconvenience upon Dutcher, but the court is not persuaded that it amounts to undue
hardship or prejudice. Dutcher obviously has an interest in moving this case forward, but
interests of judicial economy and the risk of inconsistent results hold greater importance to the
court.
Having reached the conclusion that the stay should remain in place, the court must vacate
the deadlines in the current pretrial scheduling order, the final pretrial conference, and the trial
date. A new pretrial scheduling order will be entered if and when the stay in this case is lifted.
In summary, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
1.
Dutcher’s motion to lift stay6 is DENIED.
2.
All deadlines in the current pretrial scheduling order 7 are VACATED.
3.
The final pretrial conference scheduled for November 15, 2018, at 2:30 p.m. and
the ten-day jury trial scheduled for December 3, 2018, at 8:30 a.m. are VACATED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this 8th day of November, 2018.
BY THE COURT:
PAUL M. WARNER
Chief United States Magistrate Judge
6
See docket no. 244.
7
See docket no. 242.
4
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?