Opinion
Civil Action No. 01-4165
May 16, 2002
ORDER-MEMORANDUM
AND NOW, this 16th day of May, 2002, defendants' motion for a stay is denied.
Defendants move for an order to stay this action until plaintiff Martin Eisen either dismisses with prejudice a claim filed by him with the Philadelphia Commission on Human Relations (PCHR) or initiates a lawsuit in a court of competent jurisdiction with which defendants could have this action consolidated. Defendants assert that since both this action and the PCHR complaint for age discrimination filed November 2, 1999 involve the same underlying facts and defenses, it would be inefficient and duplicative for them to proceed separately. Given the pendency of the two matters, defendants foresee a variety of problematical preclusion issues whichever action were resolved first, and they cite the burdensome cost entailed in defending actions in different forums.
Defendants are Temple University, David Adamany, President, Chris Platsoucas, Dean of the College of Science and Technology, Alu Srinivasan, Former Chair of the Department of Mathematics, Dan Reich, Former Mathematics Core Director, John Schiller, Chair of the Department of Mathematics, and Karen Koziara, Chair of the Fox School of Business, and John Does #1-25.
The present action sets forth First Amendment and due process claims. It was filed on August 15, 2001 and was listed for trial on July 15, 2002, at a Rule 16 conference on January 16, 2002 and later rescheduled for July 8, 2002. The PCHR claim was filed November 2, 1999. This motion was filed on April 25, 2002.
They point out that since his ADEA claim has been pending at PCHR for more than two years, plaintiff could immediately file suit in federal court, if he chooses to do so. Their reply also notes that a demand for arbitration and a union grievance are pending as well.
Plaintiff objects on the following grounds: (1) the delay would be prejudicial to him; (2) defendants have not established the requisite element of unfairness in going ahead with this action — if the PCHR claims are closely related to this action, they will be subject to preclusion; and (3) filing a second suit in federal court now would deprive plaintiff of the opportunity of having the PCHR (or EEOC) complete its investigation, the benefit of which to him would be a savings of his personal resources.
"The power to stay is incidental to the power inherent in every court to dispose of cases so as to promote their fair and efficient adjudication." U.S. v. Breyer, 41 F.3d 884, 893 (3d. Cir. 1994) citing Gold v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp., 723 F.2d 1068, 1077 (3d Cir. 1983). However, the moving party "must demonstrate `a clear case of hardship or inequity' if there is `even a fair possibility' that the stay would work damage on another party." Gold v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp., 723 F.2d at 1075 citing Landis v. North American Co., 299 U.S. 248, 255 (1936).
Regardless of its merits, defendants' motion is belated in terms of case management. The PCHR claim was pending for nearly two years at the time this action was filed some nine months ago, and trial was scheduled in January of this year for two months from now. Moreover, defendants have not shown significant hardship or inequity as a basis for a stay. Accordingly, the objections are sustained, and the motion, as stated at the outset, is denied.