Ferguson v. DIRECTV, LLC, 1:15-cv-02636

Plaintiff Anton M. Ferguson filed a putative class action under the FCRA against DirecTV and Multiband; Amended Complaint filed March 23, 2016.
Multiband (DirecTV’s subcontractor) filed Chapter 11 in March 2017, triggering an automatic stay as to Multiband only.
Multiband’s contract with DirecTV contains an indemnity clause and the same counsel represent both co-defendants; Multiband pays those counsel.
DirecTV moved to stay all proceedings, vacate deadlines, and delay the case management schedule until Multiband’s bankruptcy concludes (asserting the bankruptcy is a brief, prepackaged matter).
Plaintiff opposed; the court found discovery had been delayed for over a year and that further short delay would prejudice Plaintiff and the public interest in timely resolution.
Court denied DirecTV’s motion to stay, ordered discovery to proceed, and gave parties 14 days to submit a proposed case management schedule.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether to stay civil proceedings pending co-defendant’s bankruptcy	Opposes stay; seeks prompt discovery and scheduling to avoid prejudice from further delay	Seeks stay until Multiband’s Chapter 11 concludes (anticipated brief/prepackaged) to avoid duplicative work and indemnity complications	Denied — DirecTV did not meet burden to show pressing need for delay
Whether defendant will be prejudiced by proceeding	Argues limited prejudice; delay already long and discovery can proceed without undue burden	Claims depositions and discovery may have to be repeated and indemnity issues may arise if Multiband is in bankruptcy	Court found claimed burdens minimal given same counsel and timing, so factor does not favor DirecTV
Whether plaintiff will be prejudiced by delay	Asserts further delay will harm class certification efforts and risk witness loss/memory fade	Argues brief stay (about a month) would be minimal	Court found plaintiff’s interest in expeditious resolution weighs against stay
Public and court interests in staying proceedings	Public favors timely remedy of injuries and efficient docket management	Stay could conserve resources if bankruptcy affects litigation	Court concluded public and judicial interests favor proceeding rather than short stay

Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681 (recognizing district courts’ power to control docket and grant stays)
Gray v. Bush, 628 F.3d 779 (6th Cir. 2010) (stay power incidental to court’s docket management authority)
Landis v. North American Co., 299 U.S. 248 (stay power and factors for delay)
F.T.C. v. E.M.A. Nationwide, Inc., 767 F.3d 611 (6th Cir. 2014) (stay factors balancing hardships and public interest)
Int'l Bhd. of Elec. Workers v. AT & T Network Sys., 879 F.2d 864 (6th Cir.) (consideration of economical use of judicial resources in stay analysis)