READING v. NORTH HANOVER TOWNSHIP, NEW JERSEY

• Court: District Court, D. New Jersey
• Decided: June 25, 2024
• Docket: 1:23-cv-01469
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY CAMDEN VICINAGE ANGELA READING, | HONORABLE KAREN M. WILLIAMS Plaintiff, ! Civil Action Vv. No, 23-1469-KMW-SAK NORTH HANOVER TOWNSHIP, ef MEMORANDUM OPINION AND Defendants, ORDER WILLIAMS, District Judge: WHEREAS, this matter comes before the Court by way of Plaintiff's request for an administrative stay pending appeal, with consent of all counsel, (ECF No. 91) and by way of Government Defendants’ request for a stay due to lack of jurisdiction (ECF No. 96); WHEREAS, the Court notes that the standard by which the Court must evaluate a request for an administrative stay is different from a motion for a stay pending appeal; WHEREAS, the Court construes both Plaintiff and Government Defendants requesting an administrative stay; WHEREAS, with regard to administrative stays, district courts possess inherent discretion to stay a proceeding whenever the interests of justice mandate such action, and as such a court may issue a stay if it simplifies the issues and promotes judicial economy, provided that the balance of harm to the parties is taken into consideration, see Gentian v, Tristar Prods,, No. 13-1758, 2021 WL 3561215 at *8 (D.NJ. Aug. 12, 2021); WHEREAS, with regard to Government Defendants’ request for a stay, Government Defendants assert that this Court lacks jurisdiction because, after the Parties stipulated to the

dismissal of count VII of the amended complaint, “the remaining counts .. . relate to Plaintiffs pending appeal before the third Circuit,” (ECF No. 96); WHEREAS, the Government Defendants assert that “the filing of a notice of appeal... confers jurisdiction on the court of appeals and divests the district court of its control over those aspects of the case involved in the appeal,” (ECF No. 96 at 2) (quoting Sheet Metal Workers’ Int'l Ass’n Loc. 19 vy. Herre Bros., 198 F.3d 391, 394 (Gd. Cir, 1999)); WHEREAS, although the Government Defendants do not have a pending motion before this Court and thus its jurisdiction argument is premature, the Court agrees that the analysis regarding Plaintiff's First Amendment Claims against the non-Government Defendants, who do have pending motions before this Court, may require the Court to make determinations that could conflict with the Third Circuit’s review of the same facts in Plaintiff's appeal; thus THE COURT FINDS that staying the matter for further instruction based on the Third Circuit’s decision regarding Plaintiffs appeal could potentially obviate certain issues, and would significantly impact the judicial economy and ultimate disposition of the case at bar, and considering that all counse! have consented to a stay in this matter, satisfying the Court’s considerations with regard to administrative stays; and THE COURT FINDS staying all proceedings in this matter is warranted. THEREFORE, IT IS this 25th day of June, 2024, ORDERED that the Court GRANTS the Parties’ requests for a stay of all proceedings in this matter, including Government Defendants’ answer deadline and all motions currently filed, pending the resolution of Plaintiff's appeal to the Third Circuit.

Grea lQuitteta “ KAREN M. WILLIAMS United States District Judge