Ameriway Corporation v. Chen

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK --------------------------------------------------------- X : AMERIWAY CORPORATION, : : Plaintiff, : : 19-CV-9407 (VSB) - against - : : ORDER MAY YAN CHEN and ABILITY CUSTOMS, : INC., : : Defendants. : : --------------------------------------------------------- X VERNON S. BRODERICK, United States District Judge: I am in receipt of Defendants’ unopposed motion to stay this action pending the resolution of Defendants’ interlocutory appeal. (See Doc. 202 (motion); Doc. 203 (supporting memorandum); Doc. 194 (notice of interlocutory appeal).)

A district court has “broad discretion in deciding whether to grant a motion to stay” given “‘the power inherent in every court to control the disposition of the cases on its docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants.’” Lenart v. Coach, Inc., 131 F. Supp. 3d 61, 71 (S.D.N.Y. 2015) (quoting WorldCrisa Corp. v. Armstrong, 129 F.3d 71, 76 (2d Cir. 1997)) (cleaned up). The relevant factors are “(1) whether the stay applicant has made a strong showing that he is likely to succeed on the merits; (2) whether the applicant will be irreparably injured absent a stay; (3) whether issuance of the stay will substantially injure the other parties interested in the proceeding; and (4) where the public interest lies.” In re World Trade Ctr. Disaster Site Litig., 503 F.3d 167 (2d Cir. 2007) (quoting Hilton v. Braunskill, 481 U.S. 770, 776 (1987)) (footnote omitted).

Here, I need not opine on the merits of Defendants’ appeal to conclude a stay is warranted. See id. (“[T]he degree to which a factor must be present varies with the strength of the other factors, meaning that more of one factor excuses less of the other.” (internal quotation marks omitted)). Plaintiffs non-opposition to Defendants’ motion suggests that it will not be “substantially injure[d]” by a stay. /d. Further, Defendants submit that they will be prejudiced by further proceedings while the appeal is pending. (See Doc. 203 at 1-2.) “[T]here are public interest considerations on both sides,” as there are benefits both to resolving Plaintiffs claims quickly and to resolving Defendants’ subject-matter-jurisdiction concerns. In re World Trade Ctr., 503 F.3d at 170-71. On balance, I conclude a stay is warranted. Accordingly, it is hereby: ORDERED that Defendants’ motion to stay the action is GRANTED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, no later than seven (7) days following the date that the mandate of the Court of Appeals issues in the interlocutory appeal, the parties shall submit a joint status letter, not to exceed three (3) single-spaced pages, regarding their proposed next steps in this case.

The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to terminate the pending motion at Doc. 202.

SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 2, 2024 New York, New York I HN] {,. } Vernon S. Broderick United States District Judge