United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania
Matthew W. Brann United States District Judge
Hughes v. Gulf Interstate
Field Services, Inc.
August 8, 2016, the Honorable Edmund A. Sargus, Jr., to whom
the Hughes matter was assigned, entered summary
judgment in favor of the Defendant.
Court entered a Memorandum and Order denying class and
collective certification on March 24, 2017. ECF Nos. 192-93.
“A stay is an extraordinary measure. The party seeking
a stay must offer compelling reasons to abridge the opposing
party's right to litigate.” Pennsylvania ex
rel. Kane v. McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., No.
1:13-CV-605, 2013 WL 1397434, at *2 (M.D. Pa. Apr. 5, 2013)
(Conner, J.) (citing CTF Hotel Holdings, Inc. v. Marriot
Intern., Inc., 381 F.3d 131, 139 (3d Cir. 2004)).
v. Travelers Indem. Co.
760 F.2d 58
determining whether to grant a stay, this Court typically
considers four factors: “(1) the length of the
requested stay; (2) the hardship that the moving party would
face in going forward with the litigation; (3) the injury
that a stay would cause the non-moving party; (4) and whether
a stay will simplify issues and promote judicial
economy.” Scicchitano v. County of
Northumberland, 2015 WL 7568357, at *2 (M.D. Pa. Nov.
25, 2015) (Brann, J.). See also Toshiba Samsung Storage
Tech. Korea Corp. v. LG Elecs., Inc., 193 F.Supp.3d 345,
348 (D. Del. 2016) (“This Court has typically
considered three factors when deciding a motion to stay: (1)
whether granting the stay will simplify the issues for trial;
(2) the status of the litigation, particularly whether
discovery is complete and a trial date has been set; and (3)
whether a stay would cause the non-movant to suffer undue
prejudice from any delay, or allow the movant to gain a clear
Further, this Court made two substantive citations to
Hughes in its 67-page ...