IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

CAMDEN VICINAGE

CITY SELECT AUTO SALES, 

INC., a New Jersey corporation, 

individually and as the 

representative of a class of similarly 

situated persons,

Plaintiff,

v.

DAVID RANDALL ASSOCIATES, 

INC. and RAYMOND MILEY III,

 Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No.: 1:11-cv-02658-JBS–KMW

 

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO ADMINISTRATIVELY TERMINATE THIS CASE 

 

NOW COMES the named plaintiff, City Select Auto Sales, Inc. (“Plaintiff”), 

by and through its attorneys, and respectfully moves the Court to administratively 

terminate this case pending final adjudication of City Select Auto Sales, Inc. v. 

Nationwide Mutual Ins. Co., 19-CV-002613 (Court of Common Pleas, Franklin 

County, Ohio). In support of its Motion, Plaintiff alleges and states as follows: 

1. On February 4, 2019, the Court issued an order requiring Class 

Counsel to inform the Court about whether Plaintiff had commenced a declaratory 

judgment action in Ohio pertaining to Defendant’s insurance coverage and whether 

Class Counsel then intended to petition the Court to administratively terminate 

this action pending resolution of that Ohio declaratory suit. See Doc. 285. 

Case 1:11-cv-02658-JBS-KMW Document 288 Filed 04/19/19 Page 1 of 5 PageID: 9762
2

2. On March 27, 2019, Plaintiff commenced a declaratory judgment 

action in the Ohio Court of Common Pleas entitled City Select Auto Sales, Inc. v. 

Nationwide Mutual Ins. Co., 19-CV-002613 (“the Ohio matter”), seeking a 

declaration concerning the rights and obligations of Defendant’s insurer to satisfy 

some of the judgment this case. See Docs. 286, 286-1. Defendant’s insurer has been 

served and the case is underway. Plaintiff has agreed to an extension of time for the 

insurer to file a responsive pleading. Plaintiff does not know how much time will 

pass before the Ohio matter is finally resolved.

3. Therefore, rather than leaving this action pending on the Court’s open 

docket, Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court administratively terminate the

action until final adjudication of the Ohio matter.

4. “In the exercise of its discretion, ‘a court may hold one lawsuit in 

abeyance to abide the outcome of another which may substantially affect it or be 

dispositive of the issues.’” Muhammad v. Delaware Title Loans, Inc., No. CV 09-

3920(RMB/AMD), 2010 WL 11566061, at *3 (D.N.J. June 22, 2010) (quoting Bechtel 

Corp. v. Local 215, Laborers’ Intern. Union, 544 F.2d 1207, 1215 (3d Cir. 1976)).1

And “the power to stay proceedings is incidental to the power inherent in every 

court to control the disposition of the causes on its docket with economy of time and 

effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants.” Id. (quoting Landis v. North American 

Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936). The factors that courts take into account when 

 1 Similarly, L. R. Civ. 41.1 provides for administrative terminations after a 

settlement is reached. Administrative terminations are also appropriate while 

arbitrations are pending. Ambulatory Surgical Ctr. of Somerset v. Allstate Fire Cas. 

Ins. Co., No. CV 16-5378, 2017 WL 5053919, at *1 (D.N.J. Nov. 3, 2017).

Case 1:11-cv-02658-JBS-KMW Document 288 Filed 04/19/19 Page 2 of 5 PageID: 9763
3

assessing the suitability of issuing a stay are “whether a stay will simplify issues 

and promote judicial economy, the balance of harm to the parties, and the length of 

the stay.” Glades Pharmaceuticals, LLC v. Call, Inc., No. Civ. A. 04-4259, 2005 WL 

563726, at *8 (E.D. Pa. Mar. 9, 2005).

5. Here, an administrative termination of this case while the Ohio matter

is pending will promote judicial economy and will not cause any harm. The certified 

class has no hope of recovering any non-insurance asset of Defendant, and the Ohio 

matter is the class’s last and only chance of recovery. Doc. 286.

6. An administrative termination order would not operate as a dismissal 

order. Rather, it would preserve the parties’ rights to reopen the case for further 

proceedings upon request. See Doc. 285.

7. Given this preservation of rights, there is no need to notify the class 

pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)(1) as class members remain in the same position

today as they will going forward. Doc. 286. 

8. Plaintiff has included a proposed order with this motion. 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests that the Court administratively terminate

this case pending final adjudication of City Select Auto Sales, Inc. v. Nationwide 

Mutual Ins. Co., 19-CV-002613 (Court of Common Pleas, Franklin County, Ohio), 

which would not operate as a dismissal order and would preserve the parties’ rights 

to reopen the case for further proceedings upon request.

Case 1:11-cv-02658-JBS-KMW Document 288 Filed 04/19/19 Page 3 of 5 PageID: 9764
4

Dated: April 19, 2019

Respectfully submitted,

CITY SELECT AUTO SALES, INC., 

individually and as the representative of a class of 

similarly-situated persons.

By: s/Alan C. Milstein

 

Alan C. Milstein 

 One of Plaintiff’s Attorneys

Sherman, Silverstein, Kohl, Rose, and Podolsky

308 Harper Drive, Suite 200

Moorestown, NJ 08057

Telephone: 856/662-0700

Facsimile: 856/488-4744

Phillip A. Bock (pro hac vice)

Tod A. Lewis (pro hac vice)

Bock, Hatch, Lewis & Oppenheim, LLC

134 North La Salle Street, Suite 1000

Chicago, IL 60620

Telephone: 312/658-5500

Case 1:11-cv-02658-JBS-KMW Document 288 Filed 04/19/19 Page 4 of 5 PageID: 9765
5

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that on April 19, 2018, I caused the foregoing to be filed using 

the Court’s CM/ECF System which will send notification of such filing to all counsel 

of record.

/s/ Alan C. Milstein

One of Plaintiff’s attorneys

Case 1:11-cv-02658-JBS-KMW Document 288 Filed 04/19/19 Page 5 of 5 PageID: 9766