Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_09-cv-00104/USCOURTS-almd-2_09-cv-00104-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 850
Nature of Suit: Securities, Commodities, Exchange
Cause of Action: 15:78m(a) Securities Exchange Act

---

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, NORTHERN DIVISION

In re ) CIVIL ACTION NO.

COLONIAL BANCGROUP, INC. ) 2:09cv104-MHT

SECURITIES LITIGATION ) (WO)

OPINION AND ORDER

The Underwriter defendants, joined by defendant

PricewaterhouseCoopers, move to suspend all proceedings

pending the court’s ruling on the effect of Colonial

BancGroup, Inc.’s bankruptcy on this lawsuit. The motion

will be granted.

In considering whether to grant a stay, the moving

party bears the burden of establishing its necessity.

See Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 708 (1997). Where a

proposed order for a stay is at issue, a court must take

into account “the competing interests which will be

affected by the granting or refusal to grant a stay ...

[including] the possible damage which may result from the

granting of a stay, the hardship or inequity which a

party may suffer in being required to go forward, and the

Case 2:09-cv-00104-RDP-WC Document 248 Filed 09/25/09 Page 1 of 4
2

orderly course of justice measured in terms of the

simplifying or complicating of issues, proof, and

questions of law which could be expected to result from

a stay.” CMAX, Inc. v. Hall, 300 F.2d 265, 268 (9th Cir.

1962) (citing Landis v. North American Co., 299 U.S. 248,

254-255 (1936)). See also Pl.’s Resp. at 3. The

plaintiffs in this case claim a delay would “disrupt the

orderly course of justice and serve to complicate issues,

proof, and questions of law.” Pl.’s Resp. at 4

(citations omitted). Furthermore, the plaintiffs argue

that an indefinite suspension places the plaintiffs in a

state of “suspended animation.” Id. In contrast, the

movants assert that a suspension is necessary so as not

to “thwart” the rationale behind a discretionary stay,

which is at issue in this case, and insist that the

plaintiffs “cannot possibly claim” to be prejudiced by

such a “limited suspension.” Def.’s Mot. at 1.

This court declines to engage in an extended analysis

of the dangers of “justice delayed” in light of the

Case 2:09-cv-00104-RDP-WC Document 248 Filed 09/25/09 Page 2 of 4
3

brevity of this contemplated suspension. Instead,

recognizing that the court has the “inherent power to

control the disposition of the causes on its docket in a

manner which will promote economy of time and effort for

itself, for counsel, and for litigants[,]” the court

determines that a limited suspension is warranted while

it makes its decision as to the effect of Colonial

BancGroup’s bankruptcy. See CMAX, 300 F.2d at 268.

However, this suspension applies only to the deadlines

set forth in this litigation’s overall scheduling order,

as amended. As this suspension will hardly be

“indefinite” and indeed of a very “limited” nature, the

court finds that neither party will be harmed by this

brief stay, while the court will be greatly aided by

placing substantive decision-making in abeyance while it

determines the bankruptcy matter.

It is therefore ORDERED that the Underwriter

defendants’ motion to suspend the proceedings pending the

court’s ruling on the effect of Colonial BancGroup’s

Case 2:09-cv-00104-RDP-WC Document 248 Filed 09/25/09 Page 3 of 4
bankruptcy (doc. no. 238) is granted as to the scheduling

order (doc. no. 215), as amended.

DONE, this the 25th day of September, 2009.

 /s/ Myron H. Thompson 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:09-cv-00104-RDP-WC Document 248 Filed 09/25/09 Page 4 of 4