1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS 

EASTERN DIVISION 

ARCH INSURANCE COMPANY, 

a Missouri corporation, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

MICHAELS STORES, INC., a Delaware 

Corporation, and DOES 1-50, inclusive, 

Defendant. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Case No. 12 CV 00786 

Judge Ruben Castillo 

JOINT MOTION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS

 Plaintiff and Counter-Defendant Arch Insurance Company (“Arch”) and Defendant and 

Counter-Claimant Michael Stores, Inc. (“Michaels”) (collectively referred to herein as the 

“Parties”) hereby advise the Court that they have reached an agreement in principal that would 

resolve the insurance coverage issues being litigated in this action, including those that are the 

subject of the parties’ pending cross-motions for partial summary judgment (Docket Nos. 26 and 

29). Therefore, Arch and Michaels request that the Court defer ruling on the parties’ pending, 

fully-briefed cross-motions for partial summary judgment and that this action be stayed to allow 

the parties the opportunity to resolve this matter without the Parties or the Court incurring the 

costs associated with further litigation. The Parties further request that the Court set a status 

conference in or around 30-45 days on a day convenient for the Court so that the Parties can 

apprise the Court of the status of the resolution of this case. In support of this motion, the Parties 

state:

1. Arch and Michaels jointly request that the Court defer its ruling on the pending, 

fully-briefed cross-motions for partial summary judgment and stay this action because it is 

expected that the agreement in principal reached between them will resolve the coverage 

disputes at issue in this action. However, the Parties need additional time to work out the details 

of the agreement in principal and allow certain events to take place. 

2. Under the law, “the power to stay proceedings is incidental to the power inherent 
2 

in every court to control the disposition of the cases on its docket with economy of time and 

effort for itself, for counsel and for the litigants.” Landis v. North American Co., 299 U.S. 248, 

254 (1936). “When and how to stay proceedings is within the sound discretion of the trial 

court.” Cherokee Nation v. United States, 124 F.3d 1413, 1416 (Fed. Cir. 1997). 

3. “When deciding whether to grant a stay, courts balance the competing interests of 

the parties and the interest of the judicial system.” Markel American Ins. Co. v. Ryan Dolan and 

Regions Bank, 787 F.Supp. 2d 776, 779 (2011). “Courts often consider the following factors 

when deciding whether to stay an action: (i) whether a stay will unduly prejudice or tactically 

disadvantage the non-moving party, (ii) whether a stay will simplify the issues in question and 

streamline the trial, and (iii) whether a stay will reduce the burden of litigation on the parties and 

on the court.” Id. 

4. Here, the Parties agree that this action should be stayed and agree that the stay 

will facilitate resolution of the contested issues in this case. 

5. The stay should also afford the time necessary for resolution of and dismissal of 

this action without further action from the Court, thereby conserving judicial resources and 

eliminating the burden of the costs associated with further litigation on the Parties and the Court.

 Wherefore, for the reasons stated above, Arch and Michaels request that this action be 

stayed and request a status conference be held within 30-45 days on a day convenient for the 

Court so that the Parties can apprise the Court of the status of the resolution of this case. 

Dated: September 7, 2012 Respectfully submitted, 

GORDON & REES LLP 

By: _/s/ Ryan Brown____________________

Ryan T. Brown (ARDC No. 6269256) 

Email: rtbrown@gordonrees.com 

GORDON & REES LLP 

One North Franklin 

Suite 800 

Chicago, Illinois 60606 

Tel: (312) 565-1400 

Fax: (312) 565-6511 

JONES DAY 

By: _/s/ Mark DeMonte__________________ 

Morgan R. Hirst (06275128) 

Email: mhirst@jonesDay.com 

Mark W. DeMonte (0628734) 

Email: mdemonte@jonesday.com 

JONES DAY, 77 West Wacker 

Chicago, IL 60601.1692 

Telephone: 312.782.3939 

Facsimile: 312.782.8585 
3 

Admitted Pro Hac Vice: 

Matthew S. Foy (CSBN 187238) 

Email: mfoy@gordonrees.com 

GORDON & REES LLP 

275 Battery Street, Suite 2000 

San Francisco, California, 94111 

Tel: (415) 986-5900 

Fax: (415) 986-8054 

Attorneys for Plaintiff and Counter-Defendant 

Arch Insurance Company 

Of Counsel:

Edward M. Joyce 

Email: emjoyce@jonesday.com 

JONES DAY 

222 E. 41st Street 

New York, NY 10017 

Telephone: 212.326.3939 

Facsimile: 212.755.7306 

Attorneys for Defendant and Counter-Claimant 

Michaels Stores, Inc. 
4 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

 I hereby certify that on September 7, 2012, I filed the foregoing Joint Motion on behalf of 

the Parties through the Court’s ECF system, which will send notification of such filing to the 

following at their e-mail address on file with the Court: 

Ryan T. Brown (rtbrown@gordonrees.com) 

Paul M. Gamboa (pgamboa@gordonrees.com) 

Maria C. Granjean (mgranjean@gordonrees.com) 

Matthew S. Foy (mfoy@gordonrees.com) 

Gordon & Rees LLP 

One North Franklin 

Suite 800 

Chicago, IL 60606 

Counsel for Plaintiff Arch Insurance Co. 

Tel. 312-565-1400 

Fax. 312-565-6511 

 

 By: /s/ Mark W. DeMonte

Attorney for Defendant-Counterclaimant 

Michaels Stores, Inc.