Abboud v. Xcel Energy Inc.
- Patrick Schiltz
- 0:19-cv-02826
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 3
In Abboud v. Xcel Energy, Magistrate Judge Leung granted in part and denied in part a health-based continuance, staying the case for 90 days.
Camille A. Abboud and the defendants, including Xcel Energy, Inc.; the case was paused for 90 days.
What happened
In Abboud v. Xcel Energy, Inc., Camille A. Abboud sued Xcel Energy, Inc., and other defendants under federal workplace-discrimination laws and Minnesota common law. Abboud was representing himself.
Abboud asked the court to pause the case for about six months while he received treatment for significant health issues. The defendants did not oppose the request, but Abboud also said he might later need another six-month pause.
Magistrate Judge Tony N. Leung found good cause for a pause but ruled that a six-month stay was not justified at that time. The court granted in part and denied in part Abboud’s motion, stayed the case for 90 days, and provided that the stay would end automatically unless the court later ordered otherwise.
The detailed version
- Abboud v. Xcel Energy Inc. · No. 0:19-cv-02826
- Patrick Schiltz
- Apr. 17, 2020
Background
Camille A. Abboud brought claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, and Minnesota common law. The defendants had waived service, and their responsive pleadings were due in May 2020. Abboud represented himself.
Abboud moved for a continuance, meaning a delay in the proceedings, or a stay, meaning a temporary pause, for approximately six months so he could receive treatment for significant health issues. He indicated that he might seek an additional six-month stay depending on how his treatment progressed. The defendants took no position on the motion.
Analysis
The court explained that it has inherent authority to manage the proceedings on its docket. The party seeking a stay bears the burden of showing why it is needed, and the court must weigh the competing interests while recognizing that stays should be used moderately.
The court found that Abboud had shown good cause for a stay. The defendants did not object or argue that a stay would prejudice them. The court nevertheless concluded that a full six-month stay of all proceedings was not warranted at that time.
Ruling
The court granted in part and denied in part Abboud’s Motion for Continuance for Health Reasons. It stayed the matter for 90 days from the date of the order. The stay would lift automatically unless the court entered a further order. The order also stated that prior consistent orders remained in effect.
The order was signed by Tony N. Leung, United States Magistrate Judge. It did not decide the merits of Abboud’s workplace-discrimination or Minnesota-law claims.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.