United States District Court, Western District of Pennsylvania
CATHY BISSOON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
On August 28, 2014, the Court entered an Order inviting the parties, should they wish, to attempt to show cause why this case should not be stayed pending resolution of the McConnells’ intended acquisition of an assignment of Guru’s bad faith claim. Doc. 46. Only Lancer has responded in opposition to a stay, see Doc. 47, and it has failed to persuade the Court that substantial prejudice will result. The Court also declines Lancer’s suggestion that the stay be automatically lifted after 30 days, although, to be clear, Lancer may, after a time, move to lift the stay if it becomes apparent that the McConnells have not exercised reasonable diligence in resolving the assignment issue.
Consistent with the foregoing, for the reasons stated in the August 28th Order, and through an exercise of the Court’s inherent authority, this case hereby is STAYED pending resolution of the assignment issue. For the duration of the stay, this case is and shall remain ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSED. Administrative closings comprise a familiar way in which courts remove cases from their active files without final adjudication. Penn West Assocs., Inc. v. Cohen, 371 F.3d 118, 127 (3d Cir. 2004) (citation and internal quotations omitted).
Administrative closure is a docket control device used for statistical purposes only, and it does not prejudice the rights of the parties in any manner. Honig v. Comcast of Georgia I, LLC, 537 F.Supp.2d 1277, 1290 n.8 (N.D.Ga. 2008).
As and when appropriate, any 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); see also discussion supra (indicating that failure by McConnells to ...