IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

 

RSUI INDEMNITY COMPANY, * 

 * 

Plaintiff, * 

 * 

vs. * CIVIL ACTION No. 09-00776-B 

 * 

GOLDCO, INC. * 

 * 

Defendant. * 

ORDER

 

This action is before the Court on the parties’ joint 

request to stay this action, and supporting brief. (Doc. 47). 

After carefully considering the foregoing and the other relevant 

material in the file, the Court concludes that the request is 

due to be granted, in part. 

Background

Plaintiff RSUI Indemnity Company (hereinafter “RSUI”) 

initiated this declaratory judgment action on November 25, 2009. 

(Doc. 1). RSUI seeks a declaratory judgment determining its 

obligations to Defendant Goldco, Inc. pursuant to an insurance 

policy issued by RSUI to Goldco, Inc. RSUI asserts that various 

sexual harassment claims have been asserted against Goldco, Inc. 

and that the claims are not covered under the terms and 

conditions of the subject policy because the allegations arise 

out of the actions of an employee of Goldco, LLC, which actions 

Case 1:09-cv-00776-B Document 48 Filed 07/02/10 Page 1 of 4
2 

are identical to actions which formed the basis of claims that 

were reported to and made known to Goldco, LLC prior to the 

covered period; thus, the claims are excluded under the policy, 

and Goldco, Inc. is not entitled to indemnity or defense. 

Goldco, Inc. has asserted a counterclaim against RSUI and seeks 

a declaration that the policy issued by RSUI provides coverage 

for the sexual harassment claims. According to the parties, the 

underlying sexual harassment claims are still pending before the 

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”), which 

conducted an unsuccessful conciliation conference on April 22, 

2010. 

The parties jointly request that this action be stayed 

until the EEOC either issues Right to Sue letters or initiates a 

lawsuit on behalf of the claimants. The parties contend that 

“[t]he resolution of the EEOC Proceeding is critical to the 

resolution of this action because the underlying claimants, 

including those whose identities remain undisclosed, and the 

value of their claims may be necessary to the disposition of 

this dispute.” (Doc. 47 at 2). In essence, the parties contend 

that the stay is needed in order to determine the necessary 

parties to this action. 

Discussion

“[A] district court [has] discretion to stay a case pending 

the resolution of related proceedings in another forum.” Ortega 

Case 1:09-cv-00776-B Document 48 Filed 07/02/10 Page 2 of 4
3 

Truillo v. Conover & Co. Communs., Inc., 221 F.3d 1262, 1264 

(llth Cir. 2000). “When a court exercises its discretion..., 

the district court must properly limit the scope of the stay. A 

stay must not be “immoderate.” Id. In considering whether a 

stay is immoderate, the court must “examine both the scope of 

the stay (including its potential duration) and the reasons 

cited by the district court for the stay.” Id. In Ortega, the 

Eleventh Circuit held that the district court had abused its 

discretion in granting the stay because the stay was 

“immoderate.” In reaching this conclusion, the Court observed 

that the scope of the stay seemed indefinite, and by its own 

terms, it remained in effect until the foreign government 

concluded their review. Id. 

In the case sub judice, the undersigned observes as a 

preliminary matter, that it is not entirely clear that the 

requested stay is essential in this case. While resolution of 

the EEOC administrative proceedings will undoubtedly assist the 

parties in indentifying the number of potential claimants and in 

placing a dollar value on the claims, the parties have not 

explained how the outcome of the administrative proceedings will 

affect the central issue before the court, namely whether 

insurance coverage exists for the sexual harassment claims 

asserted against Goldco, LLC. As a result, the Court is 

reluctant to permit this case to linger for an extended period. 

Case 1:09-cv-00776-B Document 48 Filed 07/02/10 Page 3 of 4
4 

That said, the parties’ request for a stay is granted, in part. 

This action is stayed until October 1, 2010. 

This matter is hereby set for a scheduling conference 

before the undersigned Magistrate Judge on October 5, 2010 at

10:00 a.m., in Courtroom 1A, United States Courthouse, 113 St. 

Joseph Street, Mobile, Alabama. 

DONE this 1st day of July, 2010.

 /s/ SONJA F. BIVINS 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:09-cv-00776-B Document 48 Filed 07/02/10 Page 4 of 4