Opinion
CASE NO. 1:15-CV-01450
10-01-2015
EAGLE AUTO PARTS, INC, et al., Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF CLEVELAND, et al., Defendants.
OPINION AND ORDER
[Resolving Docs. 35, 38]
:
On July 22, 2015, Plaintiffs Eagle Auto Parts, Inc.; Eagle Auto Parts; Charity Towing LLC; Danielle Agnello; and Carmine Agnello filed a replevin action in Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court. On July 23, 2015, Cleveland removed the case to this Court based upon federal question jurisdiction.
Doc. 1.
On September 28, 2015, Defendant/Intervenor State of Ohio filed a motion to stay this case pending the criminal case before Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court. On that same day, Defendant City of Cleveland filed a similar motion to stay. On September 30, 2015, Plaintiffs filed an opposition.
Doc. 35.
Doc. 38.
Doc. 40.
For the following reasons, the Court GRANTS Defendants' request for a stay of the proceedings. This Court ORDERS that the parties file a joint status report every two months updating this Court on the state court proceedings, including assigned trial dates.
I. Background
Cleveland Police have conducted a long-term investigation into illegal car scrapping at Eagle Auto Parts. The County Prosecutor "ha[s] assisted the Cleveland Division of Police in this long-term investigation." After obtaining a search warrant, the Cleveland Police seized machinery and other items from Eagle Auto Parts.
Doc. 16 at 7.
The Defendants executed search warrants at Defendants' property and took personal property into possession. Plaintiffs initiated this action requesting the return of certain items taken into possession under the search warrants. Plaintiffs mostly argued that the properties were, at best, tangential to the criminal investigation.
After this Court granted Plaintiffs' TRO on July 29, 2015, Plaintiffs recovered one car crusher, three front end loaders, and three fork lifts from the Cleveland Police. This Court has no reason to believe that Plaintiffs are not still in possession of those items. Further, the State of Ohio asserts that it has returned the Cadillac Escalade, a wallet, identification, a family photograph, the briefcase and its contents to Plaintiffs. The State of Ohio asserts that it will soon return the seized computers.
Doc. 31.
Doc. 35.
II. Analysis
This Court agrees with the Ninth Circuit that "the Constitution does not ordinarily require a stay of civil proceedings pending the outcome of criminal proceedings." However, this Court finds that a stay of this civil proceeding is appropriate.
Keating v . Office of Thrift Supervision, 45 F.3d 322, 324 (9th Cir. 1995).
District courts consider a number of factors in determining whether to stay a civil action while a criminal action is pending. These factors include:
1) the extent to which the issues in the criminal case overlap with those presented in the civil case; 2) the status of the case, including whether the defendants have been indicted; 3) the private interests of the plaintiffs in proceeding expeditiously weighed against the prejudice to plaintiffs caused by the delay; 4) the private interests of and burden on the defendants; 5) the interests of the courts; and 6) the public interest.
Ehrlich v . Kovack,, 2015 WL 2097720, at *4 (N.D. Ohio May 5, 2015)
Although the most important factor is "the balance of the hardships" courts "must also consider whether granting the stay will further the interest in economical use of judicial time and resources.
Id. (quoting Int'l Bhd . of Elec. Workers v. AT & T Network Sys., 879 F.2d 864 (6th Cir. July 17, 1989)). --------
Here, Defendants State of Ohio and City of Cleveland have demonstrated that continuing the civil proceedings would create hardship. The Common Pleas Court has issued an extensive discovery order. Initial discovery and disclosures might thus be duplicative.
Further, a stay would further judicial economy and convenience. There seems to be substantial overlap in the facts and legal issues of the civil and criminal case.
Finally, Plaintiffs have not convinced this course that they would suffer serious hardship with a stay of this civil case. To this Court's knowledge, Plaintiffs are still in possession of the equipment necessary to run their business, and the State of Ohio seems to be returning other seized items.
CONCLUSION
For the following reasons, the Court GRANTS Defendants' request for a stay of the proceedings. This Court ORDERS that the parties file a joint status report every two months updating this Court on the state court proceedings, including assigned trial dates.
IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: October 1, 2015
s/ James S. Gwin
JAMES S. GWIN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE