Nussbaum v. Diversified Consultants, Inc.

18 Citing cases

  1. Washington v. Wilson

    CIVIL 22-749 (KMW/EAP) (D.N.J. Oct. 30, 2024)

    “Because delay results inherently from the issuance of a stay, courts have found that mere delay does not, without more, necessitate a finding of undue prejudice and clear tactical disadvantage.” Nussbaum v. Diversified Consultants, Inc., No. 15-600, 2015 WL 5707147, at *2 (D.N.J. Sept. 28, 2015) (cleaned up)

  2. Toll Jm EB Residential Urban Renewal LLC v. Tocci Residential, LLC

    Civil Action 3:16-cv-05422-PSG-TJB (D.N.J. May. 16, 2023)   Cited 2 times

    stay would simplify the issues and the trial of the case; and (4) whether discovery is complete and/or a trial date has been set. Nussbaum v. Diversified Consultants, Inc., No. CIV. 15-600, 2015 WL 5707147, at *2 (D.N.J. Sept. 28, 2015) (quoting Akishev v. Kapustin, 23 F.Supp.3d 440, 446 (D.N.J. 2014)).

  3. Icona Opportunity Partners 1, LLC v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyds

    22-4140 (KMW)(EAP) (D.N.J. Mar. 13, 2023)   Cited 2 times

    ” Akishev, 23 F.Supp.3d at 447; see also Nussbaum v. Diversified Consultants, Inc., No. 15-600, 2015 WL 5707147, at *2 (D.N.J. Sept. 28, 2015) (explaining that “suffering delayed judicial resolution” is not sufficient undue prejudice to deny a motion to stay).

  4. Ill. Nat'l Ins. Co. v. Cornett

    1:20-cv-00008 (D.V.I. May. 5, 2021)

    Id. at 11. Courts usually deny motions for stay when parties have substantially—or have almost—completed discovery. Nussbaum v. Diversified Consultants, Inc., Civ. No. 15-600, 2015 WL 5707147, at *3 (D.N.J. Sept. 28, 2015). On May 4, 2021, the Court entered an Order Amending Scheduling Order, which extended the factual discovery deadline to July 12, 2021 (ECF No. 112 at 2).

  5. Onyx Enters. Int'l Corp. v. Volkswagen Grp. of Am.

    Case No. 3:20-cv-09976 (BRM) (ZNQ) (D.N.J. Apr. 9, 2021)   Cited 6 times

    The court also deemed litigation expenses inadequate to establish hardship or inequity where the movant primarily focused on the hardship it would face in the other proceeding and only mentioned litigation costs as a hardship for not granting the stay before the court. Nussbaum v. Diversified Consultants, No. 15-600, 2015 WL 5707147 at *2 (D.N.J. Sept. 28, 2015). Further, the court found the litigation expenses were an incidental burden and not a hardship or inequity where the movant conceded that plaintiff's claims before the court will not be impacted by the outcome of the other proceeding.

  6. Cornett v. Hovensa, LLC

    1:07-cv-00025 (D.V.I. Mar. 17, 2021)

    In similar scenarios, courts have refused—or recommended refusal—to grant a stay. See, e.g., Stafford, 2020 WL 8513818, at *3; Nussbaum v. Diversified Consultants, Inc., Civ. No. 15-600, 2015 WL 5707147, at *3 (D.N.J. Sept. 28, 2015). Second, HOVENSA is allegedly a nominal defendant and it argues that the related declaratory judgment action would result in a determination of whether it is entitled to insurance coverage.

  7. Batinkoff v. Church & Dwight Co.

    Case No. 3:18-cv-16388-BRM-LHG (D.N.J. Sep. 21, 2020)

    "The party seeking the stay bears the burden of showing that it is warranted." Nicolas v. Trustees of Princeton Univ., Civ. No. 17-3695, 2017 WL 6514662, at *2 (D.N.J. Dec. 20, 2017) (citing Nussbaum v. Diversified Consultants, Inc., Civ. No. 15-600, 2015 WL 5707147, at *2 (D.N.J. 2015). III.

  8. Dorval v. Tinlsey

    Civ. No. 19-23 (D.V.I. Dec. 5, 2019)

    (1) whether a stay would unduly prejudice or present a clear tactical disadvantage to the non-moving party; (2) whether denial of the stay would create a clear case of hardship or inequity for the moving party; (3) whether a stay would simplify the issues and the trial of the case; and (4) whether discovery is complete and/or a trial date has been set.Nussbaum v. Diversified Consultants, Inc., 2015 WL 5707147, at *2 (D.N.J. Sept. 28, 2015) (citation omitted); see also Bais Yaakov of Spring Valley v. Peterson's Nelnet, LLC, 2011 WL 4056318, at *2 (D.N.J. Sept. 12, 2011) ("Courts assessing the suitability of a stay consider 'whether a stay will simplify issues and promote judicial economy, the balance of harm to the parties, and the length of the [ ] stay.'"). Where a stay is sought pending resolution of purportedly related litigation, courts consider whether resolution of the related litigation would "substantially affect [the present case] or be dispositive of the issues." Bechtel Corp. v. Local 215, Laborers' Int'l Union of N. Am., 544 F.2d 1207, 1215 (3d Cir. 1976).

  9. Iowa Network Servs. v. AT&T Corp.

    Civil Action No. 3:14-cv-3439 (PGS) (LHG) (D.N.J. Oct. 1, 2019)   Cited 2 times

    Second, while it is true that this matter may continue for some time, "'mere" delay does not, without more, necessitate a finding of undue prejudice and clear tactical disadvantage.'" Nussbaum v. Diversified Consultants, Inc., No. CIV. 15-600, 2015 WL 5707147, at *2 (D.N.J. Sept. 28, 2015) (quoting Akishev, 23 F. Supp. 3d at 447). Accordingly, the Court is not persuaded by either INS's arguments with respect to this factor.

  10. McCracken v. Verisma Sys., Inc.

    No. 6:14-cv-06248(MAT) (W.D.N.Y. Sep. 6, 2018)   Cited 5 times

    "Because delay results inherently from the issuance of a stay, courts have found that '"mere"' delay does not, without more, necessitate a finding of undue prejudice and clear tactical disadvantage." Nussbaum v. Diversified Consultants, Inc., No. CIV. 15-600, 2015 WL 5707147, at *2 (D. N.J. Sept. 28, 2015) (quoting Akishev v. Kapustin, 23 F. Supp.3d 440, 447 (D. N.J. 2014); other citation omitted). Plaintiffs also suggest that a stay will dilute the quality of the evidence.