Motion for Stay of Proceedings: Case No. 2001CW05

Home Browse Search

action pending federal court decision on related issues); Lanova Corp. v. Atlas Imperial Diesel Engine Co., 64 A.2d 419, 421 -22 (Del. 1949) (state court stayed action to allow resolution of related issues by federal court). At least two major considerations should guide a court in determining whether to exercise its discretion to stay proceedings in favor of resolution of related federal issues. First, a stay should be granted when the federal action would resolve issues important to the state proceeding. Second, and relatedly, 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. In the instant case, both factors weigh in favor of staying proceedings in this Court to allow resolution of the issues raised in the federal Complaint. a. A stay should be granted because the federal action would resolve issues important to the state proceeding. A stay should be granted when the federal action would resolve issues important to the state proceeding. Holmes v. Sinclair Prairie Oil Co., 218 P.2d 382, 386 (Okla. 1950) (stay granted when federal court would decide important underlying issues related to state court case); People ex rel. The Dept. of Public Aid v. Santos, 440 N.E.2d 876, 881 (Ill. 1982) (stay granted when federal suit might be dispositive of state action); see also Caiafa, 19 Cal. Rptr. 2d at 142. State court proceedings should be stayed when resolution of issues in federal court will impact or simplify state court proceedings or when the stay can avoid the potential for conflicting judgments. Although Colorado cases provide little guidance, cases from other jurisdictions indicate that this Court should grant the requested stay. In Santos, 440 N.E.2d 876 (Ill. 1982), actions were brought in state court to collect upon promissory notes. At the same time, a class action E