Lowenberg v. Illinois Mutual Life Insurance Company
- Haywood Gilliam
- 4:21-cv-09739
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 1
In Lowenberg v. Illinois Mutual, Judge Gilliam denied the company’s request to pause the first-filed case pending a later related case.
Illinois Mutual’s request to pause the first-filed case was denied, so the case was not stayed. The court also terminated the administrative motion to advance the hearing.
What happened
In Lowenberg v. Illinois Mutual Life Insurance Company, the defendant asked the court to pause this case while a later related case was resolved. The plaintiff opposed the request.
The court said federal district courts have discretion to pause proceedings. It found no persuasive reason to pause this first-filed case, which had been pending for a year, survived a motion to dismiss, and had deadlines and a trial date set.
Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. denied the motion to stay. The order also terminated an administrative motion to advance the hearing.
The detailed version
- Lowenberg v. Illinois Mutual Life Insurance Company · No. 4:21-cv-09739
- Haywood Gilliam
- Dec. 15, 2022
Background
Illinois Mutual Life Insurance Company asked the court to stay, or pause, this case while a later-filed related case was resolved. The opinion identifies the later case as Lowenberg v. Illinois Mutual Life Insurance Co., No. 4:22-cv-5329-HSG. The plaintiff opposed the motion.
The court treated the matter as suitable for decision without oral argument. It explained that, under the Supreme Court’s Landis decision, a federal district court has discretionary authority to stay proceedings in its own court.
Ruling
The court found no persuasive basis for staying this first-filed case. It noted that the case had been filed a year earlier, had survived a motion to dismiss, and had an existing motions deadline and trial date. The court therefore denied the motion to stay, Dkt. No. 61. The order also terminated the administrative motion to advance the hearing, Dkt. No. 63.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.