Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_04-cv-01751/USCOURTS-azd-2_04-cv-01751-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Breach of Contract

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Thomas D. Grabinski and Deanne

Grabinski, husband and wife, 

Plaintiffs, 

vs.

National Union Fire Insurance Company

of Pittsburgh, PA, a Pennsylvania

corporation, Steven Kent, a single man,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No.CV 04-01751-PHX-MHM

ORDER

Currently before the Court is Thomas D. Grabinski’s (“Plaintiff’s”) Motion to Stay

Proceedings (Dkt.#71). After reviewing the papers, the Court issues the following Order. 

The present case is one of three involving Plaintiff. Plaintiff initially sued National Union

Fire Insurance Company and Steven Kent (“Defendants”) for bad faith and insurance fraud

for their refusal to defend him in a criminal case. After Plaintiff received a favorable jury

verdict in the civil case for bad faith and insurance fraud, National Union appealed. The

appellate court affirmed the award and National Union apparently paid damages in April

2005. Plaintiff’s criminal case went to trial in September 2005. He was convicted of fraud

and racketeering and is currently incarcerated. His criminal case is pending before the

Case 2:04-cv-01751-MHM Document 75 Filed 10/23/08 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1 This claim was initially dismissed (Dkt.#35) but after an appeal to the Ninth

Circuit, the order was reversed (Dkt.#47) and thus Plaintiff’s abuse of process claim is now

pending before this Court.

- 2 -

Arizona Court of Appeals. In the present case, he alleges that Defendants abused the judicial

process while pursuing the bad faith and insurance fraud claims1

. 

Plaintiff requests that this Court stay the proceedings pending the outcome of his criminal

case that is currently before the Arizona Court of Appeals. In support of his motion, Plaintiff

argues that the criminal appeal may moot this case as a practical matter if the appellate court

affirms his conviction. Though he acknowledges that the legal issues are separate – the

criminal appeal involves fraud and racketeering charges against Plaintiff, while this civil case

involves abuse of process charges against his insurance company and his lawyer – he bases

his argument on his stated “pragmatic” belief that he cannot get a fair trial as “a convicted

felon.” (Dkt.#71 at 5; Dkt.#73 at 2) Proceeding under such circumstances would be

“quixotic,” he claims, and states that he would “stipulate to a dismissal of this case” if the

appellate court affirms his conviction. (Dkt.#73 at 1, 2) 

Defendants point out that Plaintiff has already once requested this Court for a stay, that

they have already been forced to incur considerable time and expense responding to his

discovery demands, and that this case has been pending for more than four years. (Dkt.#72

at 1-5) 

Though Plaintiff is correct that it is within the inherent discretion of this Court to issue a

stay, Landis v. North American Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254-55 (1936), the Court finds, in the

exercise of its broad discretion, that a stay of discovery at this stage of the litigation is

unwarranted. None of the cases cited by Plaintiff support granting a stay under the present

circumstances. For example, Plaintiff cites Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971). Under

the Younger abstention doctrine, a federal court is required to defer to a state court and

refrain from interfering with state proceedings, however, this doctrine has no application

here. Plaintiff is not seeking a stay of the state court proceedings; nor is he attempting to

pursue claims against the State for prosecuting him. None of the issues in the state criminal

Case 2:04-cv-01751-MHM Document 75 Filed 10/23/08 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 3 -

appeal will clarify or affect the contentions in this civil case; rather, it may simply work to

Plaintiff’s practical advantage for the jury not to see that he is a convicted felon. 

Moreover, though a district court has discretionary power to stay proceedings in its own

court after considering such factors as “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 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,” here it appears that the equities weigh in favor of going forward. CMAX, Inc. v.

Hall, 300 F.2d 265, 268 (9th Cir. 1962) (citing Landis v. North American Co., 299 U.S. 248,

254 (1936)). This case has been pending for four years; Plaintiff’s criminal appeal is

“unlikely to decide, or to contribute to the decision of, the factual and legal issues before the

district court,” Lockyer v. Mirant Corp., 398 F.3d 1098, 1113 (9th Cir. 2005); and given the

extended briefing schedule (which has apparently lasted over a year) of the criminal appeal,

the Court is unconvinced that a stay is warranted. Plaintiff admits that “the criminal appeal

will not, in the legal sense, ‘moot’ [his] abuse of process claim.” (Dkt.# 73 at 2) His

strategic decision to abandon this case if his criminal appeal does not succeed is a tactical

decision that has no bearing on whether or not the Court should grant the stay for his abuse

of process claim. 

Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED denying Plaintiff’s Motion to Stay Proceedings (Dkt.#71).

DATED this 22nd day of October, 2008.

Case 2:04-cv-01751-MHM Document 75 Filed 10/23/08 Page 3 of 3