Motion for Stay of Proceedings: Case No. 2001CW05

Home Browse Search

Proposed Amended Application conform to federal law. As in Santos and Lanova, a federal court determination as to the validity of the Motion to Amend and Proposed Amended Application would allow the this Court to continue proceedings at a later time with fundamental issues underlying the case better defined and decreased potential for issuing conflicting decisions. One Colorado case declined to stay state proceedings pending resolution of a concurrent federal case. See Conrad v. City and County of Denver, 656 P.2d 662 (Colo. 1982). In Conrad, plaintiffs in state court alleged that a nativity scene at a public building violated the Colorado Constitution. A case pending in federal court challenged the nativity scene solely under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The Court declined to stay the state court case because resolution of federal constitutional issues would not be dispositive of the state issues and because resolution of state issues required factual determinations required to be made based on the factual record developed in state court. Conrad, 656 P.2d at 667. The instant case is distinguishable. Unlike Conrad, resolution of the issues presented in the federal Complaint could greatly simplify the issues before the state Court and will be dispositive of whether the Motion to Amend continues in its present form. Moreover, to the extent necessary, the parties to the instant case would have the opportunity to develop a factual record before this Court after the termination of the stay. b. A stay should be granted because federal court is best disposed to resolve the federal law issues raised in the Complaint. A stay should be granted when the rights of the parties can best be determined by the federal courts due to the nature of the subject matter of the two proceedings. Proctor & Gamble, 255 N.Y.S.2d at 364; Caiafa, 19 Cal. Rptr. 2d at 141. In Caiafa, State Farm Fire & Casualty 7