Collingham v. Northfield Hospital and Clinics

D. Minnesota

Collingham v. Northfield Hospital and Clinics

DecidedApril 25, 2024

Docket0:21-cv-02466

StatusUnknown

This text of Collingham v. Northfield Hospital and Clinics (Collingham v. Northfield Hospital and Clinics) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Minnesota primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Collingham v. Northfield Hospital and Clinics, (mnd 2024).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA

John Collingham, et al., Case No. 21-CV-2466 (JMB/DLM) Plaintiffs, v. ORDER Northfield Hospital and Clinics, Defendant.

Currently before the Court are the Parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment. (Doc. Nos. 114, 132.) The Parties’ briefs dispute, among other matters, issues nearly identical to those raised in Kiel v. Mayo Clinic Health Sys. Se. Minnesota, No. CV-22-1319 (JRT/ECW), 2023 WL 5000255 (D. Minn. Aug. 4, 2023) and which are currently being considered on appeal by the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. Because the Eighth Circuit’s decision in Kiel will impact the Court’s analysis of the issues presented in this case, it is appropriate to stay the present matter. This Court has inherent power to stay proceedings as part of its authority “to control the disposition of the causes on its docket with economy of time and effort [in mind] for itself, for counsel, and for litigants.” Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936)); see also Sierra Club v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng’rs, 446 F.3d 808, 816 (8th Cir. 2006) (“A

district court has broad discretion to stay proceedings when appropriate to control its docket.”). “How this can best be done calls for the exercise of judgment, which must weigh competing interests and maintain an even balance.” Landis, 299 U.S. at 254–255. The Court concludes that a stay is appropriate to avoid exhausting judicial resources to decide disputes—including the arguments raised in the Parties’ pending motions for

summary judgment—which are likely to be impacted by the Eighth Circuit’s decision in Kiel. Based on the foregoing, and on all of the files, records, and proceedings herein, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: 1. This case is stayed pending the Eighth Circuit’s decision in Kiel. 2. The Parties shall contact the Court within five days of the Eighth Circuit’s

decision to request a status conference with the Court.

Dated: April 25, 2024 /s/ Jeffrey M. Bryan Judge Jeffrey M. Bryan United States District Court

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA

John Collingham, et al., Case No. 21-CV-2466 (JMB/DLM) Plaintiffs, v. ORDER Northfield Hospital and Clinics, Defendant.

Currently before the Court are the Parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment. (Doc. Nos. 114, 132.) The Parties’ briefs dispute, among other matters, issues nearly identical to those raised in Kiel v. Mayo Clinic Health Sys. Se. Minnesota, No. CV-22-1319 (JRT/ECW), 2023 WL 5000255 (D. Minn. Aug. 4, 2023) and which are currently being considered on appeal by the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. Because the Eighth Circuit’s decision in Kiel will impact the Court’s analysis of the issues presented in this case, it is appropriate to stay the present matter. This Court has inherent power to stay proceedings as part of its authority “to control the disposition of the causes on its docket with economy of time and effort [in mind] for itself, for counsel, and for litigants.” Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936)); see also Sierra Club v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng’rs, 446 F.3d 808, 816 (8th Cir. 2006) (“A

district court has broad discretion to stay proceedings when appropriate to control its docket.”). “How this can best be done calls for the exercise of judgment, which must weigh competing interests and maintain an even balance.” Landis, 299 U.S. at 254–255. The Court concludes that a stay is appropriate to avoid exhausting judicial resources to decide disputes—including the arguments raised in the Parties’ pending motions for

summary judgment—which are likely to be impacted by the Eighth Circuit’s decision in Kiel. Based on the foregoing, and on all of the files, records, and proceedings herein, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: 1. This case is stayed pending the Eighth Circuit’s decision in Kiel. 2. The Parties shall contact the Court within five days of the Eighth Circuit’s

decision to request a status conference with the Court.

Dated: April 25, 2024 /s/ Jeffrey M. Bryan Judge Jeffrey M. Bryan United States District Court

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Collingham v. Northfield Hospital and Clinics, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/collingham-v-northfield-hospital-and-clinics-mnd-2024.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack