UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR 

THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS 

EASTERN DIVISION

DEREK SCOTT WILLIAMS PLLC, DEREK SCOTT 

WILLIAMS REAL ESTATE LLC, CKN FITNESS 

LAKE WYLIE LLC, CKN FITNESS STEELE 

CREEK LLC d/b/a ORANGETHEORY FITNESS, 

SNUGBAR LLC d/b/a TIR NA NOG, MICNAN, INC 

d/b/a ACE MITCHELL BOWLERS MART, TOP 

NOTCH PERFORMANCE LLC, and TOP NOTCH 

PERFORMANCE FIT, LLC, on behalf of themselves 

and all others similarly situated,

Plaintiffs,

v.

THE CINCINNATI INSURANCE COMPANY and 

THE CINCINNATI CASUALTY COMPANY

Defendants.

 Civil Action No. 20-cv-2806

AMENDED JOINT UNOPPOSED MOTION TO STAY

AND ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSE CASE

In light of this Court’s October 7, 2021 Minute Entry, and for the reasons set forth below, 

the parties’ submit this Amended Joint Motion to Stay and respectfully request that the Court stay 

and administratively close this matter for one-hundred and eighty (180) days, during which time 

the parties will file a joint status report every 30 days. Counsel for the parties have met and 

conferred about this motion.1 As detailed below, good cause exists for the requested stay because 

it will conserve the parties’ and the Court’s resources and allow for a more efficient and orderly 

completion of this matter. See, e.g., Rogers v. Ameriprise Fin. Servs., Inc., 2008 WL 4826262, at 

 

1 Plaintiffs Top Notch Performance LLC, and Top Notch Performance Fit, LLC do not join in 

this Motion. Those Plaintiffs will promptly seek to voluntarily dismiss their claims without 

prejudice.

Case: 1:20-cv-02806 Document #: 114 Filed: 10/08/21 Page 1 of 4 PageID #:1861
2

4826-0056-7550.1

*2 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 4, 2008) (citing Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254-55 (1936) (it is well 

settled that courts may stay proceedings in the interests of “‘economy of time and effort for itself, 

for counsel, and for litigants.’”); Donets v. Vivid Seats LLC, 2020 WL 9812033, at *1 (N.D. Ill. 

Dec. 5, 2020) (“District courts have the inherent power to control their own dockets, including the 

power to stay proceedings before them.”); Munson v. Butler, 776 F. App’x 339, 342 (7th Cir. 2019) 

(“[A] district court has inherent power to exercise its discretion to stay proceedings to avoid 

unnecessary litigation of the same issues.”).

Following the Court’s recent ruling on Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel, and Defendants’ 

additional production of documents in compliance with same, written discovery will be complete 

as of October 15, 2021. But many party depositions and expert discovery have not yet begun. 

Given the current status of this matter, and the pendency of the appeals described below, the parties 

believe this is a logical point in time to stay this matter.

As the Court is aware, more than a thousand cases like this one in which insureds seek 

coverage for COVID-related losses under property insurance policies have been filed since early 

2020. There are now more than 190 appeals pending in federal circuit courts, and more than 60 

appeals in state courts, that involve the same or very similar issues of law that are at the core of 

Plaintiffs’ claims here. These include more than 20 appeals in which Defendants are parties and 

appeals that turn upon the laws of every state in which a Plaintiff in this case is located, some of 

which are already fully briefed. Appeals in the Sixth, Eighth, Ninth and Eleventh Circuit Courts 

of Appeal have been decided in recent weeks and it appears that many more appellate decisions, 

including from the Ohio Supreme Court, will be issued in the near future.2

 

2

Santo’s Italian Café LLC v. Acuity Ins. Co., 2021 WL 4304607 (6th Cir. Sep. 22. 2021); Oral 

Surgeons, P.C. v. Cincinnati Ins. Co., 2 F.4th 1141 (8th Cir. 2021); Mudpie, Inc. v. Travelers 

Casualty Ins. Co., 2021 WL 4486509 (9th Cir. Oct. 1, 2021); Gilreath Family & Cosmetic 

Case: 1:20-cv-02806 Document #: 114 Filed: 10/08/21 Page 2 of 4 PageID #:1862
3

4826-0056-7550.1

Even if not dispositive of this case, the decisions in these appeals will at a minimum shape 

the factual and legal issues that will need to be addressed in depositions and expert testimony here. 

Those decisions will likewise shape the issues in class certification and dispositive motion briefing 

and arguments. Given this reality, the parties believe that the requested stay will avoid the 

unnecessary expenditure of the parties’ and the Court’s resources in the likely event that 

developments in the appellate courts will require the amendment of pleadings, the supplementation 

or amendment of briefing already filed and expert reports already then prepared, or the reopening 

of depositions already taken. 

This motion is not made for purposes of delay and will work no unfair prejudice on any 

party.

Conclusion

For all of these reasons, the parties’ Amended Joint Unopposed Motion to Stay and 

Administratively Close Case should be granted.

/s/ Michael P. Baniak

Daniel G. Litchfield 

Brian M. Reid 

Michael P. Baniak

LITCHFIELD CAVO, LLP 

303 West Madison Street 

Suite 300 

Chicago, IL 60606

Litchfield@LitchfieldCavo.com

Reid@LitchfieldCavo.com

Baniak@LitchfieldCavo.com

Phone: (312) 781-6669 (Litchfield)

Michael K. Farrell

BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP

127 Public Square

/s/ Linda P. Nussbaum_______________ 

Linda P. Nussbaum

Bart D. Cohen

NUSSBAUM LAW GROUP, P.C.

1211 Avenue of the Americas, 40th Floor

New York, NY 10036

(917) 438-9102

lnussbaum@nussbaumpc.com

bcohen@nussbaumpc.com

James E. Cecchi

Lindsey Taylor

CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI, OLSTEIN, 

BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C.

5 Becker Farm Road

Roseland, NJ 07068

 

Dentistry, Inc. v. Cincinnati Ins. Co., 2021 WL 3870697 (11th Cir. Aug. 31, 2021); NeuroCommunication Servs., Inc. v. Cincinnati Ins. Co., Case No. 2021-0130 (Ohio). 

Case: 1:20-cv-02806 Document #: 114 Filed: 10/08/21 Page 3 of 4 PageID #:1863
4

4826-0056-7550.1

Suite 2000

Cleveland, OH 44114-1214

Phone: (216) 621-0200

mfarrell@bakerlaw.com

Attorneys for Defendants The Cincinnati 

Casualty Company and The Cincinnati 

Insurance Company

(973) 994-1700

jcecchi@carellabyrne.com 

ltaylor@carellabyrne.com

Counsel for Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class

Case: 1:20-cv-02806 Document #: 114 Filed: 10/08/21 Page 4 of 4 PageID #:1864