Windham v. Deucher et al

Filing 26

MEMORANDUM DECISION and Order denying 13 Motion to Stay. Signed by Judge Ted Stewart on 8-13-18. (jlw)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH
MARIA E. WINDHAM, as Receiver for
MARQUIS PROPERTIES, LLC,
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’
MOTION TO STAY ACTION

Plaintiff,
v.
ROBERT DEUCHER, an individual, JULIE
DEUCHER, an individual, BRIAN NIXON,
an individual, AMANDA NIXON, an
individual, DARCY WOLLASTON, an
individual, STEVE WOLLASTON, an
individual, and DOES 1-5.

Case No. 2:18-CV-428 TS-PMW
District Judge Ted Stewart

Defendants.

This matter is before the Court on Defendants’ Robert Deucher and Brian Nixon’s
(collectively, “Defendants”) Motion to Stay. 1 Defendants request the Court stay this matter
pending a ruling from the Honorable Jill N. Parrish in a related action. 2
The Court has the inherent power to grant a stay pending the result of other proceedings. 3
The Supreme Court has described this power as “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,

1

Defendants filed their Motion ex parte. However, Defendants provide no reason for the
Court to consider the matter without response from Plaintiff and the Court declines to consider
the Motion on an ex parte basis.
2

Maria E. Windham, as Receiver for Marquis Properties v. Nathaniel Robert Allen, et
al., Case No. 2:18-CV-54 JNP-DBP.
3

Nederlandse Erts-Tankersmaatchappij, N.V. v. Isbarndtsen Co., 339 F.2d 440, 441 (2d
Cir. 1964).

1

for counsel, and for litigants.” 4 This determination “calls for the exercise of judgment, which
must weigh competing interests and maintain an even balance.” 5 “Factors relevant to the court’s
decision are: (1) whether a stay would promote judicial economy; (2) whether a stay would avoid
confusion and inconsistent results; and (3) whether a stay would unduly prejudice the parties or
create undue hardship.” 6
Considering these factors, the Court declines to stay these proceedings. At this stage, it is
unclear whether a stay would promote judicial economy or avoid confusion and inconsistent
results. Moreover, there is no evidence that a stay, or lack thereof, would unduly injure the
parties or create undue hardship.
It is therefore
ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Stay (Docket No. 13) is DENIED.
DATED this 13th day of August, 2018.
BY THE COURT:

Ted Stewart
United States District Judge

4

Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936).

5

Id. at 254–55.

6

Evergreen Holdings, Inc. v. Sequoia Global, Inc., No. CIV 09 776 F, 2008 WL
4723008, *2 (W.D. Okla. 2008) (citing Meadows Indem. Co. v. Baccala & Shoop Ins. Servs.,
Inc., 760 F. Supp. 1036, 1045 (E.D.N.Y. 1991)).

2