Opinion
Civil Action No. 06-cv-01596-MSK-KLM.
September 11, 2008
ORDER GRANTING, IN PART, MOTION TO STAY
THIS MATTER comes before the Court pursuant to the parties' Stipulated Motion to Stay Pending Appeal (# 137). The parties have taken an interlocutory appeal (# 117, 124, 134) from certain orders of this Court regarding the Defendants' claims of sovereign immunity. The parties request that this Court stay further proceedings pending the disposition of those appeals.
The pendency of an interlocutory appeal on these grounds by all Defendants deprives the Court of jurisdiction to proceed as against any of the parties. See e.g. Lancaster v. Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 5, 149 F.3d 1228, 1237 (10th Cir. 1998). In this respect, relief in the form of a stay is unnecessary. However, given the indefinite time frame in which the parties' appeals will be resolved, the parties' concern in preserving the status quo during the appellate process and the Court's interest in avoiding maintaining dormant cases on an otherwise crowded docket warrant administratively closing this case pending resolution of the appeals. Upon the conclusion of all interlocutory appeals, any party may move to reopen the case. Accordingly, the parties' Stipulated Motion to Stay (# 137) is GRANTED IN PART, insofar as the Clerk of the Court is directed to mark this action as administratively closed, subject to reopening at the conclusion of appellate proceedings.