Station 6, LLC v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's London ( 2020 )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA STATION 6, LLC CIVIL ACTION VERSUS NO. 20-1371 CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS AT SECTION “R” (5) LLOYD’S, LONDON ORDER Before the Court is plaintiff’s motion to stay1 pending a decision by the Joint Panel on Multi-District Litigation (“JPML”), on whether to centralize this action with other similar actions against Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London for coordinated pretrial proceedings. See In re COVID-19 Business Interruption Protection Ins. Litig., MDL Case Number 2942. On August 12, 2020, the JPML ordered the parties in these actions to show cause why the actions should not be centralized in a single court for coordinated pretrial proceedings. Id. For the following reasons, the Court grants the motion to stay. “Courts frequently grant stays in cases when an MDL decision is pending.” Cajun Offshore Charters, LLC v. BP Prod. N. Am., Inc., No. 10- 1 See R. Doc. 12. 1341, 2010 WL 2160292, at *2 (E.D. La. May 25, 2010). When determining whether to stay proceedings, courts “must weigh competing interests and maintain an even balance.” Landis v. North American Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254-55 (1936). Courts in this district generally consider three factors: “(1) potential prejudice to the non-moving party; (2) hardship and inequity to the moving party if the action is not stayed; and (3) the judicial resources that would be saved by avoiding duplicative litigation if the cases are in fact consolidated.” Louisiana Stadium & Exposition Dist. v. Fin. Guar. Ins., No. 09-235, 2009 WL 926982, at *1 (E.D. La. Apr. 2, 2009) (citing Weisman v. Southeast Hotel Prop. Ltd. Partnership, 1992 WL 131080, at *6 (S.D.N.Y. 1992)). Each of these three factors weigh in favor of the stay. First, the defendant will not be prejudiced by a brief delay of these proceedings. See Gulf Crown Seafood, Inc. v. BP, PLC, et al., No. 10-1344, 2010 WL 11707509, at *2 (E.D. La. June 2, 2010) (“District courts have granted motions to stay after finding that the plaintiff would not be prejudiced by a slight delay.” (collecting cases)). “A delay of a few months . . . is, nonetheless, slight when compared to the hardship to [the moving party] and the interests of judicial economy.” Id. Here, the show-cause briefing deadlines extend through September 2, 2020, suggesting that any delay will be brief. In re COVID-19 Business Interruption Protection Ins. Litig., MDL Case Number 2942. Second, courts have found “hardship and inequity” when parties are forced to litigate multiple suits in multiple courts, subjecting them to the potential of inconsistent rulings. See Falgoust v. Microsoft Corp., No. 0o- 0779, 2000 WL 462919, at *2 (E.D. La. Apr. 19, 2000). This could occur here, given that defendant’s motion to dismiss is pending before this Court.2 Third, a brief stay of these proceedings will preserve judicial resources “by avoiding duplicative litigation if the cases are in fact consolidated.” Gulf Crown Seafood, Inc., 2010 WL 11707509, at *1. It is ORDERED that all proceedings in this case are STAYED, pending a decision of the JPML. New Orleans, Louisiana, this _13th _ day of August, 2020. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 2 See R. Doc. 11.