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

 Judge Kennelly

JOINT UNOPPOSED MOTION TO STAY

AND ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSE CASE

For the reasons set forth below, the parties respectfully request that the Court stay and 

administratively close this matter until fourteen (14) days after any party files a request to reopen 

the case. 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 *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 

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 #: 112 Filed: 10/06/21 Page 1 of 5 PageID #:1855
2

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 8, 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. 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 

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 #: 112 Filed: 10/06/21 Page 2 of 5 PageID #:1856
3

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 a 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 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’ 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

Suite 2000

Cleveland, OH 44114-1214

Phone: (216) 621-0200

mfarrell@bakerlaw.com

 /s/ Barry A. Spevack .

Michael Monico 

Barry A. Spevack 

MONICO & SPEVACK 

55 West Jackson Blvd 

Suite 1315 

Chicago, IL 60604 

(312) 782-8500 

mmonico@monicolaw.com 

bspevack@monicolaw.com 

Local Counsel for Plaintiffs and the Proposed 

Class

Linda P. Nussbaum

NUSSBAUM LAW GROUP, P.C.

1211 Avenue of the Americas, 40th Floor

New York, NY 10036

(917) 438-9102

lnussbaum@nussbaumpc.com

Case: 1:20-cv-02806 Document #: 112 Filed: 10/06/21 Page 3 of 5 PageID #:1857
4

Attorneys for Defendants The Cincinnati 

Casualty Company and The Cincinnati 

Insurance Company

James E. Cecchi

CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI, OLSTEIN, 

BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C.

5 Becker Farm Road

Roseland, NJ 07068

(973) 994-1700

jcecchi@carellabyrne.com 

Counsel for Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class

Case: 1:20-cv-02806 Document #: 112 Filed: 10/06/21 Page 4 of 5 PageID #:1858
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Joint Unopposed 

Motion to Stay and Administratively Close Case was served on counsel for all parties through 

the Court’s ECF Filing System on October 6, 2021. 

/ /s/ Barry A. Spevack_______ 

Case: 1:20-cv-02806 Document #: 112 Filed: 10/06/21 Page 5 of 5 PageID #:1859