Opinion
Civil Action 1:22-cv-02393-PAB-SBP
08-22-2023
BESTOP, INC., Plaintiff, v. MASTERTOP, INC., Defendant.
RECOMMENDATION TO ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSE CASE PENDING SETTLEMENT NEGOTIATIONS
SUSAN PROSE, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
This matter is before the court upon the parties' Sixth Joint Motion to Continue Deadlines or Administratively Close the Case. ECF No. 42. The parties jointly request either another 90-day extension of the case deadlines or that the court administratively close the case, while the parties continue to actively negotiate a complex settlement agreement. The court considers the motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), the Order Referring Case (ECF No. 18), and the Memorandum referring the motion. ECF No. 43.
Plaintiff Bestop, Inc., filed its complaint on September 16, 2022. ECF No. 1. As the parties note in their motion, they have obtained five earlier extensions of the case while they work on settlement negotiations in this patent infringement case. Thus, the case has been pending for nearly a year and has not yet reached the point of a scheduling conference.
Shortly after this court granted the fifth extension, the court held a status conference on May 24, 2023. The court informed the parties that if they did not complete a settlement by the scheduling conference set for September 11, 2023, the court would look to administratively close the case. ECF No. 41.
Bestop joins in the present motion for extension or administrative closure, but it prefers the former over the latter. Defendant MasterTop, Inc., has no objection to either another extension or administrative closure. The parties argue that either way, the staying of the scheduling conference and all other case deadlines is in the interest of judicial economy and efficiency, as a settlement would obviate the need to litigate the case.
The court has discretion concerning whether to stay a case. Wang v. Hsu, 919 F.2d 130, 130 (10th Cir. 1990); Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254-55 (1936) (recognizing the power to stay cases is incidental to a court's power “to control the disposition of the causes on its docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants,” citing Kansas City S. Ry. Co. v. United States, 282 U.S. 760, 763 (1931)).
In some cases, administrative closure is preferable to a stay. “When a court administratively closes a case, the closure generally operates as the practical equivalent of a stay. Unlike a stay however, an administratively closed case is not counted as active although it remains on the docket.” Patterson v. Santini, 631 Fed.Appx. 531, 534 (10th Cir. 2015) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted, citing Quinn v. CGR, 828 F.2d 1463, 1465 & n.2 (10th Cir. 1987)). Typically, administrative closure “allows district courts to remove from their pending cases suits which are temporarily active elsewhere (such as before an arbitration panel) or stayed (such as where a bankruptcy is pending).” Patterson, 631 Fed.Appx. at 534 (internal quotation marks omitted). Judges in this District have also administratively closed several cases pending settlement negotiations. See, e.g., Houghteling v. Country Mut. Ins. Co., No. 21-cv-02035-WJM-NYW, 2021 WL 8944767, at *2 (D. Colo. Sept. 3, 2021) (order to show cause by then-Magistrate Judge Nina Wang, collecting cases), report and rec. to administratively close case, 2021 WL 7368196 (D. Colo. Sep. 13, 2021), adopted, 2021 WL 7368203 (D. Colo. Sep. 28, 2021).
An administratively closed case “still exists on the docket of the district court,” and “may be reopened upon request of the parties or on the court's own motion.” Patterson, 631 Fed.Appx. at 534. In this District, Local Rule 41.2 provides in relevant part that “[a] district judge or a magistrate judge exercising consent jurisdiction may order the clerk to close a civil action administratively subject to reopening for good cause.” D.C.COLO.LCivR 41.2. Good cause in this context is not onerous. Patterson, 631 Fed.Appx. at 534. “[G]ood cause to reopen a case exists where the parties wish to litigate the remaining issues that have become ripe for review.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).
Because the parties' active settlement negotiations have run for nearly a year, and they continue to actively negotiate a complex settlement agreement, this court GRANTS the motion to extend or administratively close the case. The deadline to file a proposed scheduling order and the scheduling conference set for September 11, 2023 are VACATED.
In addition, this court respectfully RECOMMENDS that:
(1) This case be administratively closed pursuant to D.C.COLO.LCivR 41.2, with leave to reopen for good cause shown;
(2) The parties be ordered to file a Notice of Settlement within seven days of reaching a settlement, if such a settlement is reached;
(3) Should settlement negotiations not be successful, the parties be ordered to file either a joint status report or a motion to re-open the case by February 21, 2024.
Rule 72 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that within fourteen (14) days after service of a Magistrate Judge's order or recommendation, any party may serve and file written objections with the Clerk of the United States District Court for the District of Colorado. 28 U.S.C. §§ 636(b)(1)(A), (B); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(a), (b). Failure to make any such objection will result in a waiver of the right to appeal the Magistrate Judge's order or recommendation. See Sinclair Wyo. Ref. Co. v. A & B Builders, Ltd., 989 F.3d 747, 782 (10th Cir. 2021) (firm waiver rule applies to non-dispositive orders); but see Morales-Fernandez v. INS, 418 F.3d 1116, 1119, 1122 (10th Cir. 2005) (firm waiver rule does not apply when the interests of justice require review, including when a “pro se litigant has not been informed of the time period for objecting and the consequences of failing to object”).