Opinion ID: 2708942
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The denial of the defendants’ motion to stay

Text: Lastly, the defendants claim that the district court’s dam‐ ages determination should have been stayed until the plain‐ tiffs’ claims against the non‐defaulting defendants were re‐ solved. We disagree. Though we have in the past prohibited district courts from holding a damages hearing against a de‐ faulting defendant when the same claim remains pending against non‐defaulting defendants, this rule comes from concerns of judicial economy and inconsistent damage awards. In re Uranium Antitrust Litig., 617 F.2d 1248, 1262 (7th Cir. 1980). There is no concern for inconsistent awards here. The plaintiffs have committed—both in open court and in their briefs—to dismiss all claims against the non‐ 24 No. 13‐2435 defaulting defendants if the judgment against the Swiechs and Lewicki is affirmed. Accordingly, they will be judicially estopped from abandoning their firm commitment once we do so. See, e.g., Grochocinski v. Mayer Brown Rowe & Maw LLP, 719 F.3d 785, 795 (7th Cir. 2013). This is not the case that Uranium Antitrust sought to avoid, and it was therefore no abuse of discretion for the district court to deny the defend‐ ants’ motion for a stay.