Laserfiche WebLink
the power inherent in every court to control the disposition of the causes on its docket with <br />economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants," and determining whether to <br />grant a stay of proceedings "calls for the exercise of judgment, which must weigh competing <br />interests and maintain an even balance." Landis et al. v. North American Co., 299 U.S. 248, <br />254 -55 (1936). A court may appropriately stay its proceedings pending the outcome of litigation <br />pending in a different court. See, e.g., id; Nationwide Mutual Ins. Co. v. Mayer, 833 P.2d 60, 61- <br />62 (Colo. App. 1992); Proctor & Gamble Distrib. Co. v. Lloyd's Underwriters, 255 N.Y.S.2d <br />361, 364 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1964) (state court stayed action pending federal court decision on related <br />issues). <br />1. Granting the Motion for Stay Will Promote Economy of Time and Effort <br />for the Court and Parties. <br />A stay is to promote economy of time and effort for court, counsel and litigants. Security <br />State Bank of Sterling v. Weingardt, 597 P.2d 1045, 1047 (Colo. App. 1979) (citing ACF <br />Industries, Inc. v. Guinn, 384 F.2d 15, 19 (5 Cir. 1967)). Considerations of judicial economy <br />are appropriate in determining whether to grant a stay of proceedings. Landis, 299 U.S. at 254 -55 <br />(court should be guided by concerns of economy of time and effort for itself, counsel and parties <br />in weighing motion for stay). See also City and County of Denver v. District Court, 939 P.2d <br />1353, 1370 -71 (Colo. 1997) (holding that state court should have stayed its proceedings until <br />completion of alternative dispute resolution proceedings to avoid potential conflicting results; <br />although a state statute required the result in that case, inherent in the Court's opinion is that <br />judicial resources should be preserved where resolution of issues in one case will impact the <br />outcome in another). <br />3 <br />