Laserfiche WebLink
economic use of judicial resources. See, e.g., Pet Milk Co. v. Ritter, 323 F.2d 586, 588 (10th Cir. <br />1963). Granting or denying a motion for stay of the proceeding rests in the trial court's sound <br />discretion. See, e.g., Adolph Coors Co. v. Davenport Mach. & Foundry Co., 89 F.R.D. 148,152 (D. <br />Colo. 1981);.In Re Marriage of Fleet, 701 P.2d 1245, 1247 (Colo. App. 1985). <br />Here, Environmental Opposers have the burden of proving that they would suffer hardship <br />or inequity if these proceedings are not stayed. The proponent of the stay "must make out a clear <br />case of hardship or inequity in being required to go forward, if there is even a fair possibility that <br />the stay for which he prays will work damage to someone else. Only in rare circumstances will <br />a litigant in one cause be compelled to stand aside while a litigant in another settles the rule <br />of law that will define the rights of both." Landis v. North American Co., 299 U.S. 248, 255 <br />(1936) (emphasis added). The movant is required to make a strong showing that the stay is <br />necessary for the movant and that the disadvantageous effect on others will be clearly outweighed. <br />Commodity Futures Trading Com'n v. Chilcott Portfolio Management, Inc., 713 F.2d 1477, 1484 <br />(10th Cir. 1983). <br />Moreover, a trial court should consider the timing of the concurrent proceedings when a stay <br />is sought. Generally, the court that first obtained jurisdiction should have priority. Dawn v. Mecom, <br />520 F.Supp. 1194,1196 -97 (D. Colo. 1981); Nationwide Mut. Ins. v. Mayer, 833 P.2d 60, 61 (Colo. <br />App. 1992). Similarly, it is often inappropriate for a court to stay a proceeding pending the <br />resolution of another proceeding when the non - stayed proceeding has not progressed beyond the <br />preliminary stage. See Adolph Coors Co., 89 F.R.D. at 154. <br />11 <br />