Colony Insurance Company v. Shane Garst, et al.
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Anthony J. Battaglia (author)
Analysis
The court considered a joint motion by the plaintiff and defendants to stay the insurance coverage action pending the trial of the underlying lawsuit. The court granted the motion, staying the action for 90 days and vacating the existing scheduling order.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Joint Motion for Stay of Proceedings Pending Trial in the Underlying Action granted“Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the joint motion.” | agree with court The court correctly applied the discretionary standard for stays, balancing judicial economy against potential prejudice. The order recites that the underlying trial is imminent (March 20, 2026) and that the parties agreed to proceed, satisfying the requirements that the stay be for a reasonable time and that it not work damage to the opposing party. The decision follows from the law and the record recited. |
Scheduling Order (Doc. No. 22) vacated“All dates and deadlines contained in the January 14, 2026 Scheduling Order (Doc. No. 22) are VACATED.” | agree with court Vacating the scheduling order is a necessary procedural consequence of staying the case to prevent conflicting deadlines during the stay period. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly identifies the relevant legal standards for a stay of proceedings and applies them to the specific facts presented (imminent trial in the underlying action, joint motion, no prejudice to parties). The reasoning is complete and supported by the cited authorities.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 COLONY INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No.: 25-cv-02235-AJB-JLB 12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING JOINT 13 v. MOTION FOR STAY OF PROCEEDINGS PENDING TRIAL 14 SHANE GARST, et al., IN THE UNDERLYING ACTION 15 Defendants. (Doc. No. 27) 16 17 18 Before the Court is the Joint Motion for Stay of Proceedings Pending Trial in the 19 Underlying Action filed by Plaintiff Colony Insurance Company (“Colony”) and 20 Defendants Shane Garst and the Sydekicks Real Estate, LLC. (collectively, “Garst”). (Doc. 21 No. 27.) On February 26, 2026, the Court held a status hearing with the parties to discuss 22 the joint motion. (Doc. No. 29.) 23 This is an insurance coverage action in which Colony seeks a declaration that Garst 24 does not qualify as an additional insured party and therefore Colony does not owe Garst a 25 duty to defend Garst in Winthrop Cramer v. Shane Garst, et al., Case No. 37-2023- 26 00001814-CU-CO-NC, an underlying and related civil lawsuit pending in San Diego 27 County Superior Court. (Id. at 2.) The parties indicate that trial in the underlying action 28 will begin on March 20, 2026, and that “the outcome of that trial may affect the factual 1 basis of the motions, alter the coverage issues, or even potentially eliminate any remaining 2 coverage issues pled and to be decided in this lawsuit.” (Id. at 2–3.) Currently, Colony has 3 declined a defense to Garst in the underlying action, but is defending Rivera Construction, 4 who is a cross-defendant and named insured in the underlying action. (Id. at 2.) 5 The “power to stay proceedings is incidental to the power inherent in every court to 6 control the disposition of the causes on its docket with economy of time and effort for itself, 7 for counsel, and for litigants.” Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936). A stay may 8 be granted pending the outcome of other legal proceedings related to the case in the 9 interests of judicial economy. See Leyva v. Certified Grocers of Cal., Ltd., 593 F.2d 857, 10 863–64 (9th Cir. 1979). Discretion to stay a case is appropriately exercised when the 11 resolution of another matter will have a direct impact on the issues before the court, thereby 12 substantially simplifying the issues presented. See Mediterranean Enters., Inc. v. 13 Ssangyong Corp., 708 F.2d 1458, 1465 (9th Cir. 1983). 14 In determining whether a stay is appropriate, a district court “must weigh competing 15 interests and maintain an even balance.” Landis, 299 U.S. at 254–55. “[I]f there is even a 16 fair possibility that the stay . . . will work damage to someone else, the stay may be 17 inappropriate absent a showing by the moving party of hardship or inequity.” Dependable 18 Highway Express, Inc. v. Navigators Ins. Co., 498 F.3d 1059, 1066 (9th Cir. 2007) “A stay 19 should not be granted unless it appears likely the other proceedings will be concluded 20 within a reasonable time in relation to the urgency of the claims presented to the court.” 21 Leyva, 593 F.2d at 864. 22 The Court finds that a stay is warranted here. Based on the parties’ representations, 23 the resolution of the underlying action may substantially simplify or even resolve the issues 24 before this Court. (Doc. No. 27 at 2–3.) Such circumstances merit a stay. Mediterranean 25 Enters., 708 F.2d at 1465. Given that the parties before this Court intend to move forward 26 with litigating the underlying action, there does not appear to be any risk that a stay will 27 “work damage to someone else.” Dependable Highway, 498 F.3d at 1066. Additionally, 28 because trial in the underlying action will begin on March 20, 2026, “it appears likely the 1 || other proceedings will be concluded within a reasonable time in relation to the urgency of 2 || the claims presented to the court.” Leyva, 593 F.2d at 864. 3 Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the joint motion. If trial in the underlying action 4 ||is continued, any party may move to lift the stay. 5 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this action is STAYED for 90 days. The Court 6 ||SETS a status hearing for 10:00 a.m. on May 21, 2026, in Courtroom 4A to discuss next 7 || steps in this action. All dates and deadlines contained in the January 14, 2026 Scheduling 8 || Order (Doc. No. 22) are VACATED. 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. 10 || Dated: February 26, 2026 12 United States District Judge 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28