Laufer v. Suites IQ LLC ( 2021 )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Judge Raymond P. Moore Civil Action No. 20-cv-3549-RM-NYW DEBORAH LAUFER, Plaintiff, v. SUITES IQ, LLC, Defendant. ______________________________________________________________________________ ORDER ______________________________________________________________________________ This matter is before the Court on “Defendant’s Unopposed Motion to Stay Proceedings Pending Appeal” (ECF No. 32), requesting the Court stay this action pending a decision by the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals in Laufer v. Looper, No. 21-1031, appeal filed January 29, 2021 (the “Laufer Appeal). The Laufer Appeal is an appeal of an order of dismissal based on lack of standing in Laufer v. Looper, No. 20-CV-02475-NYW, 2021 WL 330566 (D. Colo. Jan. 11, 2021). Pending before this Court is a motion to dismiss also based on Ms. Laufer’s alleged lack of standing and, as Defendant represents, the outcome of the Laufer Appeal will affect and impact the case at hand. Accordingly, the Court agrees and finds this case should not proceed until the Laufer Appeal has been resolved. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 1 (recognizing the federal rules of civil procedure should be employed to promote the “just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action and proceeding”); Dietz v. Bouldin, -- U.S. -- , 136 S. Ct. 1885, 1892, 195 L.Ed.2d 161 (2016) (noting a district court’s “inherent power” to “manage its docket and courtroom with a view toward the efficient and expedient resolution of cases”). Defendant seeks a stay pending the Laufer Appeal. The Court, however, finds that a stay equivalent under D.C.COLO.LCivR 41.2 is more appropriate. Quinn v. CGR, 828 F.2d 1463, 1465 n.2 (10th Cir. 1987); see also Patterson v. Santini, 631 F. App’x 531, 534 (10th Cir. 2015) (recognizing the uses of “the administrative-closure mechanism” by district courts). And, “Tb]ecause an administratively closed case still exists on the docket of the district court, it may be reopened upon request of the parties or on the court’s own motion.” Patterson, 631 F. App'x at 534. Accordingly, it is ORDERED (1) That “Defendant’s Unopposed Motion to Stay Proceedings Pending Appeal” (ECF No. 32) is GRANTED in that the Court will grant a stay equivalent; (2) That, pursuant to D.C.COLO.LCivR 41.2, the Clerk shall terminate any pending motion; and (3) That, pursuant to D.C.COLO.LCivR 41.2, the Clerk shall administratively close this case subject to reopening for good cause. DATED this 8th day of March, 2021. BY THE COURT: United States District Judge