United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Seattle
ORDER ON MOTION FOR STAY
J. Pechman, United States Senior District Judge.
above-entitled Court, having received and reviewed:
1. Defendant's Motion to Stay Proceeding (Dkt. No. 17),
2. Plaintiff's Response to Defendant's Motion to Stay
Proceeding (Dkt. No. 30),
3. Defendant's Reply in Support of Motion to Stay
Proceeding (Dkt. No. 42), all attached declarations and
exhibits, and relevant portions of the record, and finding
that oral argument is not necessary, rules as follows:
ORDERED that the motion is GRANTED; this matter is STAYED
until final adjudication of King County v. Frank Coluccio
Constr'n Co. and Liberty Mutual Ins. Co. King Co.
Sup. Ct. No. 16-2-19398-1 SEA.
a dispute which arose in the wake of an aborted tunnel
construction project which Defendant undertook for King
County. For purposes of this motion, it is only necessary to
note that a lawsuit was filed by King County against
Defendant Frank Coluccio Construction Company
(“Coluccio Construction”) in December of 2016; an
amended complaint added Plaintiff Liberty Mutual Insurance
Company (“Liberty Mutual”) as a defendant in the
September of 2019, Liberty Mutual sued Coluccio Construction
in King County Superior Court, alleging claims for indemnity,
breach of contract, specific performance, and injunctive
relief. A motion by Coluccio Construction to consolidate that
lawsuit with the earlier state action was granted in October
of 2019, in response to which Liberty Mutual dismissed its
lawsuit in King County Superior Court. Two days later,
Liberty Mutual filed the above-entitled federal action.
Presently pending in the federal lawsuit (besides the instant
motion to stay) is a motion for summary judgment on behalf of
Liberty Mutual. Dkt. No. 20.
decision to stay proceedings is committed to the discretion
of the Court as an ancillary exercise of its power to control
its own docket, conserve the resources of the judiciary and
the parties, and effect justice. Landis v. N. Am.
Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936).
In considering a stay, a district court must weigh the
following competing interests: (1) “the possible damage
which may result from the granting of a stay”; (2)
“the hardship or inequity which a party may suffer in
being required to go forward”; and (3) “the
orderly course of justice measured in terms of the
simplifying or complicating of issues, proof, and questions
of law which could be expected to result from a stay.”
CMAX, 300 F.2d at 268 (citing Landis, 299
U.S. at 254-55).
Jinni Tech Ltd. v. RED.com, Inc., C17-0217JLR, 2018
WL 5312200, at *3 (W.D. Wash. Oct. 26, 2018).
Court finds that all these factors weigh in favor of a stay
of these proceedings pending resolution of the state action.
Liberty Mutual acknowledges “the amount of
Coluccio's indemnity obligation to Liberty Mutual…
will be determined by the King County action.” Dkt. No.
30, Response at 10. Given that Liberty Mutual's claim for
indemnity cannot be determined independently of the
adjudication of its liability to King County, there is no
damage to the insurer in putting this case on hold until the
question of liability is ultimately resolved in state court.
Similarly, the other claims at issue here are ...