Summary
granting plaintiff's motion to lift stay
Summary of this case from ST. CLAIR INTELLECTUAL PROP. CONSUL. v. FUJIFILM HOLDOpinion
Civil Action No. 04-1436-JJF-LPS.
October 15, 2008
MEMORANDUM ORDER
Pending before the Court is a Motion To Lift The Stay (D.I. 134) filed by Plaintiff. The Motion is opposed by the Non-Kodak Defendants.
The decision to impose or lift a stay is within the discretion of the Court. Cost Bros., Inc. v. Travelers Indem. Co., 760 F.2d 58, 60 (3d Cir. 1985). Factors the Court may consider include, but are not limited to: (1) the stage of the litigation, (2) prejudice to the parties, and (3) whether a stay will simplify the issues in the case and the trial of the case. See e.g.,Zoetics, Inc. v. Yahoo!, Inc., 2006 WL 1876912, *1 (D. Del. July 6, 2006) (citations omitted).
In a related action, St. Clair Intellectual Property Consultants, Inc. v. Research In Motion, Ltd., et al., 08-371-JJF, the Court considered these factors in the context of determining whether to impose a stay and determined, at a hearing held on October 9, 2008, that a stay was not warranted and the action should go forward. The Court's conclusion applies equally to this case, such that the Court is persuaded that the stay should be lifted. The underlying action which precipitated the stay has been resolved, and a stay has not been imposed or has been lifted in related actions so that these cases can proceed.Id., see also St. Clair Intellectual Property Consultants, Inc. v. Fuji Photo Film Co. Ltd., et al., 03-241-JJF. The potential prejudice to the parties of continuing the stay is equally balanced, and the Court is persuaded that the continuation of these actions at this time is necessary for the effective administration of this case and its related counterparts.
NOW THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiff's Motion To Lift The Stay (D.I. 134) is GRANTED .
2. This action is referred to the Honorable Leonard P. Stark for discovery and other pretrial matters that may arise. The Court will adjudicate any summary judgment motions filed by the parties and will hold the Pretrial Conference in this action.
3. Matters relating to the referred issues shall be filed using the caption designated on this Order. Matters that do not require the attention of the Magistrate Judge should not use the "LPS" designation as part of the case number.