Great West Casualty Company v. Cannon Ball Direct LLC et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
GREAT WEST CASUALTY )
COMPANY, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Case No. CIV-24-1122-G
)
CANNON BALL DIRECT, LLC et al., )
)
Defendants. )
ORDER
Plaintiff Great West Casualty Company initiated this action in October 2024,
seeking entry of a declaratory judgment regarding an insurance policy issued by Plaintiff
to Defendant Cannon Ball Direct, LLC (“Cannon Ball”). Now before the Court is a
Motion to Dismiss or Stay (Doc. No. 25) filed by Defendants Cannon Ball and Clayton S.
Hays. Responses have been filed by Plaintiff and by Defendant Carla McDaniel, as
Special Administrator of the Estate of Colter Vaught, Deceased (Doc. Nos. 26, 29), as well
as a Reply (Doc. No. 28).
A federal district court’s “broad discretion to stay proceedings,” Clinton v. Jones,
520 U.S. 681, 706 (1997), is inherent in its power 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. N. Am. Co., 229 U.S. 248, 254 (1936). The party seeking a stay bears the burden
of showing that there is a “pressing need for delay and that the other party will not suffer
harm” as a result. Nelson v. Granite State Ins. Co., No. CIV-08-1165-M, 2010 WL
680878, at *1 (W.D. Okla. Feb. 25, 2010).
Case 5:24-cv-01122-G Document 36 Filed 08/05/25 Page 1 of 2

2
The Court finds that staying this matter is the most efficient course of action and
will not be unduly prejudicial to any party, given the likelihood that the disposition of
Defendant Hays’ criminal prosecution for the murder of Colter Vaught in the District Court
of Beckham County will materially affect the coverage disputes at issue in this case, as
well as the Fifth Amendment concerns cited by Defendant Hays. See Defs.’ Mot. at 9-19.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss or Stay (Doc.
No. 25) is GRANTED as follows:
• This matter and all proceedings herein are STAYED, pending the disposition of
Defendant Hays’ criminal proceeding in State v. Hays, No. CF-2024-9 (Beckham
Cnty. Dist. Ct.) and further order of the Court;
• Defendants Cannon Ball and Hays are DIRECTED to notify the Court in writing of
the Beckham County District Court’s disposition of Defendant Hays’ criminal
proceeding within fourteen (14) of the date of that disposition; and
• Defendant McDaniel’s Motion to Dismiss or Stay (Doc. No. 9) and Plaintiff’s
Motion for Order (Doc. No. 30) are DENIED without prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 5th day of August, 2025.
Case 5:24-cv-01122-G Document 36 Filed 08/05/25 Page 2 of 2