Pond v. Union Pacific Railroad Company
- Paul Magnuson
- 0:20-cv-00587
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 2
In Pond v. Union Pacific Railroad Company, Judge Menendez stayed the entire case because Covia entered bankruptcy and ordered 90-day updates.
The stay affects Samuel Pond’s claims against Covia, the claims involving Union Pacific Railroad Company, and Union Pacific’s cross-claims against Covia. All parties must provide joint 90-day status updates about Covia’s bankruptcy proceeding and the likely duration of the stay.
What happened
Pond v. Union Pacific Railroad Company concerns claims by Samuel Pond against Union Pacific Railroad Company and Covia Holdings Corporation. Covia notified the court of its bankruptcy proceeding and the resulting legal stay of proceedings against it.
The court determined that the claims against Covia had to be stayed under the bankruptcy law. It also stayed the entire case because the claims involving Union Pacific and Union Pacific’s claims involving Covia were closely connected, making piecemeal litigation wasteful. The parties must submit joint status updates every 90 days about the bankruptcy proceeding and the likely length of the stay.
Judge Katherine Menendez entered the order on July 14, 2020, staying the action because of Covia’s bankruptcy proceeding.
The detailed version
- Pond v. Union Pacific Railroad Company · No. 0:20-cv-00587
- Paul Magnuson
- July 14, 2020
Background
Covia Holdings Corporation filed a notice informing the court of its bankruptcy proceeding and the automatic stay of proceedings. The case involved Samuel Pond’s claims against Covia and Union Pacific Railroad Company, as well as Union Pacific’s cross-claims against Covia. During a telephone conference, counsel for Pond agreed that a stay was appropriate at that time.
Court’s Analysis
The court explained that 11 U.S.C. § 362(a) automatically stays judicial actions or proceedings against a debtor that has applied for bankruptcy relief. Based on that provision, the court concluded that Pond’s claims against Covia had to be stayed.
The court also exercised its inherent power to stay the entire case to control its docket, conserve judicial resources, and promote a just determination. It found that the claims against Union Pacific and Union Pacific’s cross-claims against Covia were inextricably intertwined. Litigating the matter in separate pieces would waste the parties’ and the court’s resources.
Order
The court ordered that the entire action be stayed as a result of Covia’s bankruptcy proceeding. It also ordered the parties to provide joint status updates every 90 days from the date of the order concerning the progress of Covia’s bankruptcy proceeding and the likely duration of the stay.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.