The United States of America for the Use and Benefit of K-Con Inc v. Toro Defense Contracting LLC

W.D. Oklahoma

The United States of America for the Use and Benefit of K-Con Inc v. Toro Defense Contracting LLC

DecidedSeptember 3, 2025

Docket5:25-cv-00501

StatusUnknown

This text of The United States of America for the Use and Benefit of K-Con Inc v. Toro Defense Contracting LLC (The United States of America for the Use and Benefit of K-Con Inc v. Toro Defense Contracting LLC) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. Oklahoma primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

The United States of America for the Use and Benefit of K-Con Inc v. Toro Defense Contracting LLC, (W.D. Okla. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA

THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) for the Use and Benefit of K-CON, INC., ) a South Carolina Corporation, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Case No. CIV-25-501-G ) TORO DEFENSE CONTRACTING, ) LLC, a Texas limited liability company, ) et al., ) ) Defendants. )

ORDER Now before the Court is a Motion to Stay (Doc. No. 19), filed jointly by Plaintiff The United States of America ex rel. K-Con, Inc. and Defendants Toro Defense Contracting, LLC and Merchants Bonding Company (Mutual). The parties request that the instant case be stayed pending resolution of a related lawsuit currently pending in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims. See id. at 1-4; Toro Def. Contracting, LLC v. United States, No. 25-cv-00777 (Fed. Cl.). The Motion represents that the related lawsuit “involves claims against the Government . . . that necessarily involve claims and/or defenses at issue in the subject case.” Mot. to Stay at 4. A federal district court’s “broad discretion to stay proceedings,” Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 706 (1997), is inherent in its power to “control the disposition of the causes on its docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants,” Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936); see also Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp. v. First Nat’l Bank & Tr. Co. of Okla. City, 496 F. Supp. 291, 293 (W.D. Okla. 1978). In light of the ongoing related lawsuit, and having weighed the “competing interests,” the Court finds that a stay of proceedings is warranted and appropriate. Landis, 299 U.S. at 255. CONCLUSION IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Motion to Stay (Doc. No. 19) is GRANTED as follows:

e This matter and all proceedings herein are STAYED and administratively closed pending the disposition of the related litigation in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims and further order of this Court; and

e The parties shall inform this Court in writing of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims’ final disposition of Toro Defense Contracting, LLC v. United States, No. 25-cv- 00777, within thirty (30) days of the date of that disposition. IT IS SO ORDERED this 3rd day of September, 2025.

(Vauba B. Kodo United States District Judge

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA

THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) for the Use and Benefit of K-CON, INC., ) a South Carolina Corporation, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Case No. CIV-25-501-G ) TORO DEFENSE CONTRACTING, ) LLC, a Texas limited liability company, ) et al., ) ) Defendants. )

ORDER Now before the Court is a Motion to Stay (Doc. No. 19), filed jointly by Plaintiff The United States of America ex rel. K-Con, Inc. and Defendants Toro Defense Contracting, LLC and Merchants Bonding Company (Mutual). The parties request that the instant case be stayed pending resolution of a related lawsuit currently pending in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims. See id. at 1-4; Toro Def. Contracting, LLC v. United States, No. 25-cv-00777 (Fed. Cl.). The Motion represents that the related lawsuit “involves claims against the Government . . . that necessarily involve claims and/or defenses at issue in the subject case.” Mot. to Stay at 4. A federal district court’s “broad discretion to stay proceedings,” Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 706 (1997), is inherent in its power to “control the disposition of the causes on its docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants,” Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936); see also Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp. v. First Nat’l Bank & Tr. Co. of Okla. City, 496 F. Supp. 291, 293 (W.D. Okla. 1978). In light of the ongoing related lawsuit, and having weighed the “competing interests,” the Court finds that a stay of proceedings is warranted and appropriate. Landis, 299 U.S. at 255. CONCLUSION IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Motion to Stay (Doc. No. 19) is GRANTED as follows:

e This matter and all proceedings herein are STAYED and administratively closed pending the disposition of the related litigation in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims and further order of this Court; and

e The parties shall inform this Court in writing of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims’ final disposition of Toro Defense Contracting, LLC v. United States, No. 25-cv- 00777, within thirty (30) days of the date of that disposition. IT IS SO ORDERED this 3rd day of September, 2025.

(Vauba B. Kodo United States District Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

The United States of America for the Use and Benefit of K-Con Inc v. Toro Defense Contracting LLC, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/the-united-states-of-america-for-the-use-and-benefit-of-k-con-inc-v-toro-okwd-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack