United States District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania
April 10, 2014
G.P.P., INC., Plaintiff,
CHRISTOPHER SCHALL, Defendant.
CATHY BISSOON, District Judge.
Defendant's Motion to Stay (Doc. 10) will be granted. This is the second of two cases filed in federal court regarding the same subject matter. Compare Compl. (Doc. 1) with compl. in Schall v. G.P.P., Inc., 2:13-cv-13517-GER-DRG (E. D. Mich. (Detroit)). The issues presented in the two cases are sufficiently similar that the "first-filed" rule applies. See EEOC v. Univ. of Pennsylvania , 850 F.2d 969, 971 (3d Cir. 1988) (rule "encourages sound judicial administration and promotes comity among federal courts of equal rank, " and it allows court in second-filed suit to enjoin proceedings when same parties and issues already are before another district court) (citation to quoted source omitted). Although Plaintiff argues that Defendant's filing in Michigan constitutes an "improper anticipatory suit, " see Doc. 12 at 10-13, Defendant has raised sufficient arguments to the contrary ( see Doc. 13) that the issues properly should be resolved by the Michigan Court in the first instance.
Accordingly, Defendant's Motion to Stay (Doc. 10) is GRANTED, and this case is STAYED pending the Michigan Court's resolution of the motions before it. By separate order, this Court will administratively close this case, and it will remain administratively closed for the duration of the stay. As and when appropriate, either party may restore this action to the Court's active calendar upon application or by motion. See In re Arbitration Between Philadelphia Elec. Co. v. Nuclear Elec. Ins., Ltd. , 845 F.Supp. 1026, 1028 (S.D.N.Y. 1994) (holding same).
IT IS OR ORDERED.