Pressman-Gutman Co., Inc. v. First Union National Bank

Full title: PRESSMAN-GUTMAN CO., INC. v. FIRST UNION NATIONAL BANK, et al

Court: United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania

Date published: Jan 25, 2005

Civil Action No. 02-8442 (E.D. Pa. Jan. 25, 2005)

Opinion

Civil Action No. 02-8442.

January 25, 2005

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

LAWRENCE F. STENGEL, District Judge

Plaintiff has filed a motion to stay pending the appeal to the Third Circuit and the decision on the petition for writ of mandamus or prohibition. Plaintiff notes that courts consider four factors in determining whether to grant a motion to stay: (1) the movant's likelihood of success on the merits; (2) whether the movant will suffer irreparable harm if the request is denied; (3) whether other parties will be harmed by the stay; and (4) whether granting the stay will serve the public interest. Pl.'s Mem. Supp. Stay, at 8 (citing Prometheus Radio Project v. F.C.C., 2003 WL 22052896 (3d Cir. Sept. 3, 2003)).

This court finds that plaintiff is not likely to succeed on the merits. As this court previously indicated, the Gutmans were not removed as fiduciaries, and ERISA has not been violated. Moreover, this court appropriately determined that Hamburg and Golden should have been completely disqualified because there was no indication that the plaintiff profit-sharing plan consented to the joint representation of the plan and third-party defendants.

Plaintiff raises several bare allegations of harm to the plan if the stay is denied. For example, plaintiff contends that the plan's money might unnecessarily be spent on the guardian ad litem and on new counsel if the stay is not granted and the Third Circuit later determines that the guardian ad litem and new counsel should not have been appointed. This court, however, finds that such a scenario is too speculative. Plaintiff has not demonstrated irreparable harm that is certain to occur to the plan if the stay is denied.

Furthermore, this court finds that granting the stay would harm defendants. This case has been pending for more than two years. Plaintiff's recent motions have disrupted this case from proceeding to trial, and granting the stay would only further delay this matter. Finally, plaintiff has not clearly demonstrated how granting the stay would serve the public interest.

In conclusion, this court finds that the factors weigh against granting the motion to stay. Accordingly, plaintiff's motion is denied. An appropriate order follows.

AND NOW, this 25^th day of January, 2005, upon consideration of plaintiff's motion to stay (Doc. # 110), and replies thereto, it is hereby ORDERED that said motion is DENIED.