UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT                             
                DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA                                


John Collingham, et al.,              Case No. 21-CV-02466 (JMB/DLM)      
               Plaintiffs,                                           
v.                                              ORDER                     
Northfield Hospital and Clinics,                                          
               Defendant.                                            

Currently before the Court are the Parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment.  
(Doc. Nos. 114, 132.)  In their motions, the Parties dispute, among other matters, issues 
nearly identical to those raised in Kiel v. Mayo Clinic Health System Southeast Minnesota, 
No. 22-CV-1319 (JRT/ECW), 

 (D. Minn. Aug. 4, 2023), which decision 
was reviewed by the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit sub nom 
Ringhofer v. Mayo Clinic, Ambulance, 

 (8th Cir. 2024).       
This Court has inherent power to stay proceedings as part of its authority “to control 
the disposition of the causes on its docket with economy of time and effort [in mind] for 
itself, for counsel, and for litigants.”  Landis v. N. Am. Co., 

 (1936)); see 
also Sierra Club v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng’rs, 

 (8th Cir. 2006) (“A 
district court has broad discretion to stay proceedings when appropriate to control its 

docket.”).  “How this can best be done calls for the exercise of judgment, which must weigh 
competing interests and maintain an even balance.”  Landis, 299 U.S. at 254–255. 
Because the Eighth Circuit’s decision in Kiel/Ringhofer and any subsequent appeals 
of it may directly impact the Court’s analysis of the issues presented in this case, it is 
appropriate to continue to stay the present matter until the time for appeals, if any, of the 
Eighth Circuit’s decision has tolled.  For this reason, the Court concludes that a continued 

stay is appropriate to avoid exhausting judicial resources to decide disputes—including the 
arguments raised in the Parties’ pending motions for summary judgment—which are likely 
to be impacted by any further appeals in the Kiel/Ringhofer case.  In the event that an appeal 
of the Kiel/Ringhofer case is not filed, the Court will lift the stay and proceed with hearing 
the Parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment.  A hearing will be scheduled for the end 
of October with briefing to start forty-nine days prior to hearing date.  

Based on the foregoing, and on all of the files, records, and proceedings herein, 
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT this case is stayed pending the appeal time on the 
decision in Kiel/Ringhofer.                                               

Dated: July 26, 2024                    /s/ Jeffrey M. Bryan              
                                   Judge Jeffrey M. Bryan            
                                   United States District Court      

            UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT                             
                DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA                                


John Collingham, et al.,              Case No. 21-CV-02466 (JMB/DLM)      
               Plaintiffs,                                           
v.                                              ORDER                     
Northfield Hospital and Clinics,                                          
               Defendant.                                            

Currently before the Court are the Parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment.  
(Doc. Nos. 114, 132.)  In their motions, the Parties dispute, among other matters, issues 
nearly identical to those raised in Kiel v. Mayo Clinic Health System Southeast Minnesota, 
No. 22-CV-1319 (JRT/ECW), 

 (D. Minn. Aug. 4, 2023), which decision 
was reviewed by the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit sub nom 
Ringhofer v. Mayo Clinic, Ambulance, 

 (8th Cir. 2024).       
This Court has inherent power to stay proceedings as part of its authority “to control 
the disposition of the causes on its docket with economy of time and effort [in mind] for 
itself, for counsel, and for litigants.”  Landis v. N. Am. Co., 

 (1936)); see 
also Sierra Club v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng’rs, 

 (8th Cir. 2006) (“A 
district court has broad discretion to stay proceedings when appropriate to control its 

docket.”).  “How this can best be done calls for the exercise of judgment, which must weigh 
competing interests and maintain an even balance.”  Landis, 299 U.S. at 254–255. 
Because the Eighth Circuit’s decision in Kiel/Ringhofer and any subsequent appeals 
of it may directly impact the Court’s analysis of the issues presented in this case, it is 
appropriate to continue to stay the present matter until the time for appeals, if any, of the 
Eighth Circuit’s decision has tolled.  For this reason, the Court concludes that a continued 

stay is appropriate to avoid exhausting judicial resources to decide disputes—including the 
arguments raised in the Parties’ pending motions for summary judgment—which are likely 
to be impacted by any further appeals in the Kiel/Ringhofer case.  In the event that an appeal 
of the Kiel/Ringhofer case is not filed, the Court will lift the stay and proceed with hearing 
the Parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment.  A hearing will be scheduled for the end 
of October with briefing to start forty-nine days prior to hearing date.  

Based on the foregoing, and on all of the files, records, and proceedings herein, 
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT this case is stayed pending the appeal time on the 
decision in Kiel/Ringhofer.                                               

Dated: July 26, 2024                    /s/ Jeffrey M. Bryan              
                                   Judge Jeffrey M. Bryan            
                                   United States District Court