Estate of Ann Boggess v. U.S. Bank, N.A.
- Donovan Frank
- 0:23-cv-00045
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 2
In Estate of Ann Boggess v. U.S. Bank, Judge Frank denied the plaintiffs’ motion to stay certain claims while related Delaware litigation proceeded.
The ruling affected the Estates of Frank Bolle, Ann Boggess, and Anna Zufelt, whose requested stay was denied, and U.S. Bank, N.A., and Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., which opposed the motion.
What happened
In Estate of Ann Boggess v. U.S. Bank, six estates sued U.S. Bank, N.A., and Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. The estates of Frank Bolle, Ann Boggess, and Anna Zufelt asked the court to pause their claims so they could proceed in a related Delaware state-court case.
The defendants opposed the request. The court said the plaintiffs had to show that a stay was necessary and that it could consider conserving resources, managing its docket, ensuring a fair determination, and avoiding hardship or unfairness to the defendants.
Judge Donovan W. Frank concluded that the plaintiffs had not met that burden. The court denied the motion to stay.
The detailed version
- Estate of Ann Boggess v. U.S. Bank, N.A. · No. 0:23-cv-00045
- Donovan Frank
- Mar. 18, 2025
Background
The plaintiffs are the Estates of Ann Boggess, Frank Bolle, Saul Offit, Naomi Pressma, Georgia Towers, and Anna Zufelt, each acting through an identified executor. They sued U.S. Bank, N.A., and Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., each identified as a securities intermediary.
The motion concerned claims brought by the Estates of Frank Bolle, Ann Boggess, and Anna Zufelt against both defendants. The plaintiffs asked the court to stay, meaning temporarily pause, those claims so they could proceed in a related Delaware state-court action identified as Estate of Boggess, et al. v. Viva Capital 3 L.P., et al., No. N23C-05-130 (Del. Super. Ct.). The defendants opposed the motion.
Legal standard
The court explained that it has inherent authority to control its docket and discretion to decide whether to stay litigation. The party requesting a stay bears the burden of showing that one is necessary. Relevant considerations may include conserving judicial and party resources, maintaining control of the docket, providing for a just determination, and avoiding hardship or unfairness to the opposing party.
Ruling
After considering the parties’ arguments and the relevant factors, the court concluded that the plaintiffs had not shown that a stay was needed. The court therefore denied the plaintiffs’ motion to stay, docketed as Doc. No. 170.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.