Wilt v. Household Life Insurance Company
Filing
53
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER granting the 47 MOTION to Stay insofar as it requests a stay of this case, and STAYS this case until further order of the Court; directing this case removed from the active docket of the Court. Signed by Judge Thomas E. Johnston on 9/16/2015. (cc: counsel of record; any unrepresented party) (taq)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
CHARLESTON DIVISION
SHARON WILT,
Individually, and on behalf of a class
of similarly-situated persons,
Plaintiff,
v.
HOUSEHOLD LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY,
CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:14-cv-31400
Defendant/Third-Party Plaintiff,
v.
BENEFICIAL WEST VIRGINIA, INC.
Third-Party Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Pending before the Court is Defendant/Third-Party Plaintiff Pavonia Life Insurance
Company of Michigan’s Motion for Stay (the “Motion to Stay”). (ECF No. 47.) For the reasons
that follow, the Court GRANTS this motion.
This case arises out of a “credit-disability insurance policy” Plaintiff alleges she purchased
from Defendant Pavonia Life Insurance Company of Michigan f/k/a Household Life Insurance
Company (“Pavonia”) “in connection with her mortgage loan from Beneficial West Virginia, Inc.”
(“Beneficial”). (ECF No. 1, Ex. A ¶ 1.) On November 21, 2014, Plaintiff filed the purported classaction Complaint against Pavonia in the Circuit Court of Kanawha County, West Virginia. (ECF
1
No. 1, Ex. A.) Defendant Pavonia then removed the case to this Court on December 31, 2014,
(ECF No. 1), and filed a motion to dismiss the Complaint (the “Motion to Dismiss”) on January 7,
2015, (ECF No. 3).
On April 17, 2015, Defendant Pavonia filed a third-party complaint against Third-Party
Defendant Beneficial. (ECF No. 19.) On June 30, 2015, Third-Party Defendant Beneficial filed a
motion to compel arbitration (the “Motion to Compel”), which requests that the Court order all
parties to arbitrate their respective claims. (ECF No. 34.)
Subsequently, on August 21, 2015, Defendant Pavonia filed the Motion to Stay, which
requests that the Court stay this matter pending its ruling on the Motion to Dismiss and Motion to
Compel.1 (ECF No. 47.) Plaintiff filed an opposition brief to the Motion to Stay on September 4,
2015, (ECF No. 51), and Defendant Pavonia filed a reply brief in support of this motion on
September 14, 2015, (ECF No. 52). To date, Third-Party Defendant Beneficial has not filed a brief
regarding the Motion to Stay. As such, the Motion to Stay is fully briefed and ready for disposition.
“The decision whether to grant a stay is discretionary, and within the inherent power of the
court ‘to control the disposition of the causes on its docket with economy of time and effort for
itself, for counsel, and for litigants.’” White v. Ally Fin. Inc., 969 F. Supp. 2d 451, 461 (S.D. W.
Va. 2013) (quoting Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936)). However, “proper use of this
[discretion] ‘calls for the exercise of judgment which must weigh competing interests and maintain
an even balance.’” Williford v. Armstrong World Indus., Inc., 715 F.2d 124, 127 (4th Cir. 1983)
(quoting Landis, 299 U.S. at 254‒55). “The party seeking a stay must justify it by clear and
convincing circumstances outweighing potential harm to the party against whom it is operative.”
In the Motion to Stay, Defendant Pavonia “moves to stay discovery and other deadlines.” (E.g., ECF No. 47.) The
Court construes this motion as requesting a stay of the entire case and not only discovery.
1
2
Id. “In other words, the court should consider whether the movant has demonstrated ‘a clear case
of hardship or inequity in being required to go forward, if there is even a fair possibility that the
stay’ will harm someone else.” White, 969 F. Supp. 2d at 462 (quoting Williford, 715 F.2d at 127).
Thus, courts in this District have “identified three factors to consider in determining whether to
grant a motion to stay: ‘(1) the interests of judicial economy; (2) hardship and equity to the moving
party if the action is not stayed; and (3) potential prejudice to the non-moving party.’” Id. (quoting
Tolley v. Monsanto Co., 591 F. Supp. 2d 837, 844 (S.D. W. Va. 2008)).
The Court finds that these factors weigh heavily in favor of a stay. First, the interests of
judicial economy weigh in favor of a stay, as the pending Motion to Dismiss tests the sufficiency
of all claims in Plaintiff’s Complaint. (See ECF No. 4.) Additionally, the Motion to Compel asserts
that all parties’ claims are arbitrable. (See ECF No. 34.) The resolution of these motions will guide
the future of this litigation before this Court, narrow the issues, or potentially terminate this case.
It is therefore in the interests of efficiency and judicial economy to expeditiously resolve these
motions prior to continued discovery and motion practice in this case.
Second, Defendant Pavonia has shown that equitable interests factor in favor of granting
the Motion to Stay. In particular, the Court’s rulings on the Motion to Dismiss and the Motion to
Compel will largely determine the scope of Defendant Pavonia’s future discovery and briefing in
this matter―as well as the future efforts of Third-Party Defendant Beneficial.
Finally, Plaintiff will face minimal prejudice by a short stay in this matter. Plaintiff filed
the case under a year ago and it is still early in the discovery process. A relatively short stay in the
potentially expensive discovery in this matter will not cause Plaintiff to suffer any particular
hardship.
3
For the foregoing reasons, the Court finds that Defendant Pavonia has satisfied its burden
to show clear and convincing circumstances in favor of a short stay that outweigh any potential
harm to Plaintiff. However, the stay in this case shall extend no longer than 60 days from the date
of this Memorandum Opinion and Order. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the Motion to Stay,
(ECF No. 47), insofar as it requests a stay of this case, and STAYS this case until further order of
the Court. The Court ORDERS the Clerk to remove this case from the active docket of the Court.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
The Court DIRECTS the Clerk to send a copy of this Order to counsel of record and any
unrepresented party.
ENTER:
4
September 16, 2015
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?