Estate of Ann Boggess v. U.S. Bank, N.A.

D. Minnesota

Estate of Ann Boggess v. U.S. Bank, N.A.

DecidedMarch 18, 2025

Docket0:23-cv-00045

StatusUnknown

This text of Estate of Ann Boggess v. U.S. Bank, N.A. (Estate of Ann Boggess v. U.S. Bank, N.A.) 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

Estate of Ann Boggess v. U.S. Bank, N.A., (mnd 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA

Estate of Ann Boggess, by its Executor, Civil No. 23-45 (DWF/DJF) Thomas Boggess; Estate of Frank Bolle, by its Executor, Frank L. Bolle; Estate of Saul Offit, by its Executor, Marc Offit; Estate of Naomi Pressma, by its Executor, Conrad Pressma; Estate of Georgia Towers, by its Executor, Edwin Towers; ORDER and Estate of Anna Zufelt, by its Executor, Cheryl Howey,

Plaintiffs,

v.

U.S. Bank, N.A., as Securities Intermediary, and Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as Securities Intermediary,

Defendants.

This matter is before the Court on a motion to stay certain claims brought by Plaintiffs. (Doc. No. 170.) Plaintiffs seek to stay claims of the Estates of Frank Bolle, Ann Boggess, and Anna Zufelt against Defendants U.S. Bank, N.A., as Securities Intermediary, and Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as Securities Intermediary (together, “Defendants”) in favor of permitting their claims to proceed in a related Delaware state court action, Estate of Boggess, et al. v. Viva Capital 3 L.P., et al., N23C-05-130 (Del. Super. Ct.). Defendants oppose the motion. (Doc. No. 171.) The decision of whether to stay litigation falls within the Court’s inherent power to control its docket. Cottrell v. Duke, 737 F.3d 1238, 1248 (8th Cir. 2013). The decision to stay is also within the Court’s discretion. Aquilar v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, 289 F. Supp. 3d 1000, 1007 (D. Minn. 2018). The burden of establishing the necessity of a stay is on the moving party. Id. A court may consider factors including the

conservation of judicial and the parties’ resources, maintaining control of the court’s docket, providing for the just determination of cases, and any hardship or inequity to the opposing party. Parada v. Anoka County, No. 18-cv-795, 2020 WL 6488794, at * 2 (D. Minn. Nov. 4, 2020). The Court has carefully considered the parties respective arguments and the

relevant factors and concludes that Plaintiffs have not met their burden of demonstrating the need for a stay of the requested claims. Therefore, based upon the foregoing and record in this case, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ motion to stay (Doc. No. [170]) is respectfully DENIED.

Dated: March 18, 2025 s/Donovan W. Frank DONOVAN W. FRANK United States District Judge

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA

Estate of Ann Boggess, by its Executor, Civil No. 23-45 (DWF/DJF) Thomas Boggess; Estate of Frank Bolle, by its Executor, Frank L. Bolle; Estate of Saul Offit, by its Executor, Marc Offit; Estate of Naomi Pressma, by its Executor, Conrad Pressma; Estate of Georgia Towers, by its Executor, Edwin Towers; ORDER and Estate of Anna Zufelt, by its Executor, Cheryl Howey,

Plaintiffs,

v.

U.S. Bank, N.A., as Securities Intermediary, and Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as Securities Intermediary,

Defendants.

This matter is before the Court on a motion to stay certain claims brought by Plaintiffs. (Doc. No. 170.) Plaintiffs seek to stay claims of the Estates of Frank Bolle, Ann Boggess, and Anna Zufelt against Defendants U.S. Bank, N.A., as Securities Intermediary, and Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as Securities Intermediary (together, “Defendants”) in favor of permitting their claims to proceed in a related Delaware state court action, Estate of Boggess, et al. v. Viva Capital 3 L.P., et al., N23C-05-130 (Del. Super. Ct.). Defendants oppose the motion. (Doc. No. 171.) The decision of whether to stay litigation falls within the Court’s inherent power to control its docket. Cottrell v. Duke, 737 F.3d 1238, 1248 (8th Cir. 2013). The decision to stay is also within the Court’s discretion. Aquilar v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, 289 F. Supp. 3d 1000, 1007 (D. Minn. 2018). The burden of establishing the necessity of a stay is on the moving party. Id. A court may consider factors including the

conservation of judicial and the parties’ resources, maintaining control of the court’s docket, providing for the just determination of cases, and any hardship or inequity to the opposing party. Parada v. Anoka County, No. 18-cv-795, 2020 WL 6488794, at * 2 (D. Minn. Nov. 4, 2020). The Court has carefully considered the parties respective arguments and the

relevant factors and concludes that Plaintiffs have not met their burden of demonstrating the need for a stay of the requested claims. Therefore, based upon the foregoing and record in this case, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ motion to stay (Doc. No. [170]) is respectfully DENIED.

Dated: March 18, 2025 s/Donovan W. Frank DONOVAN W. FRANK United States District Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Estate of Ann Boggess v. U.S. Bank, N.A., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/estate-of-ann-boggess-v-us-bank-na-mnd-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack