Data Sales Co., Inc. v. Radium LTD.

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Data Sales Co., Inc.,
Plaintiff,
v.
Radium Ltd.,
Defendant.
Civil No. 25-cv-04126 (LMP/SGE)
ORDER
This matter is before the Court pursuant to the Defendant Radium Ltd.’s motion for
stay of proceedings. (Dkt. 25.) Radium requests this Court stay proceedings in this case
until a breach determination is made in an underlying state court action in North Carolina.
See Data Sales Co. Inc. v. Radium Cloud, Inc., Case no. 25CV009776-310 (N.C. Super.)
(“State Court Action”). (See id. at 4.) Plaintiff Data Sales Co., Inc. does not oppose
Radium’s motion. (Dkt. 33.)
A district court has inherent authority “to control its docket when facing concurrent
state and federal litigation.” Contrell v. Duke, 737 F.3d 1238, 1249 (8th Cir. 2013) (citing
Lunde v. Helms, 898 F.2d 1343, 1345 (8th Cir. 1990)). As a part of that authority, district
courts may temporarily stay cases “to control the disposition of the causes on its docket
with economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants.” Landis v. North
American Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936). Courts may also halt a federal action “due to the
presence of a concurrent state proceeding[.]” Colorado River Water Conservation Dist. v.
United States, 424 U.S. 800, 818 (1976). This gives the courts the opportunity to avoid the
possibility of “reach[ing] conflicting opinions on the same issues” and creating
CASE 0:25-cv-04126-LMP-SGE Doc. 36 Filed 04/20/26 Page 1 of 2

2
“unwarranted friction between state and federal courts.” Spectra Commc’ns Grp., LLC v.
City of Cameron, Mo., 806 F.3d 1113, 1121 (8th Cir. 2015).
Here, in this action, the Court finds that a temporary stay to these proceedings serves
the interests of both judicial economy and justice. Data Sales seeks to recover from Radium
based on an alleged default on a lease that Radium guaranteed. (See generally, Compl.,
Dkt. 1.) The state court action, which Data Sales filed first, involves litigating whether the
underlying lease was breached. (See Voelbel Decl. Ex. A, Dkt. 28.) Data Sales cannot
prevail on its guaranty claim in this action if it does not first establish a breach of the lease.
And if the state court determines that there was no breach of the underlying lease, then
Data Sales’ guaranty claim before this Court must also fail.
In the interest of judicial economy and because justice will be best served by
allowing the state court action to resolve before this action proceeds, thereby substantially
narrowing the matters in dispute, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
1. Radium’s Motion for Stay of Proceedings (Dkt. 25) is GRANTED;
2. this matter is STAYED; and
3. the parties shall provide the Court with a joint status update on the progression
of the State Court Action on August 31, 2026, and every 4 months thereafter
until the State Court Action concludes.
Dated: April 20, 2026 	Shannon G. Elkins
SHANNON G. ELKINS
United States Magistrate Judge
CASE 0:25-cv-04126-LMP-SGE Doc. 36 Filed 04/20/26 Page 2 of 2