Luu v. United States of America et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
)
NIAL LUU, )
Plaintiff )
)
v. ) Civil No. 26-40129-DHH
)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al., )
Defendants )
)
ORDER ON JOINT MOTION TO STAY
October 13, 2026
Hennessy, M.J.
The parties have filed a joint motion to stay this matter until final resolution of the related
criminal proceedings in Commonwealth v. Luu (Case # 2385-DR-00269, Worcester Superior
Court). See [Dkt. No. 32]. In support of their motion, the parties state that
Plaintiff Luu would suffer substantial hardship and inequity if this matter proceeds
before the conclusion of the related criminal proceedings, as Plaintiff Luu may be
unable to fully present relevant material evidence, testimony, and factual
determinations necessary to support Plaintiff’s ability to fairly litigate this matter.
Proceeding with this civil action at this time may also result in inconsistent factual
determinations and unnecessary duplication of proceedings which could prejudice
both parties and burden the Court due to judicial inefficacy.
Id. at pp. 1-2. In sum, the parties are concerned that participation in this civil action before the
conclusion of Luu’s criminal action could infringe on his right against self-incrimination. See id.
at p. 2.
It is undisputed “that federal courts possess the inherent power to stay proceedings for
prudential reasons.” Microfinancial, Inc. v. Premier Holidays Int’l, Inc., 385 F.3d 72, 77 (1st
Cir. 2004) (citing Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254-55 (1936); Marquis v. FDIC, 965
F.2d 1148, 1154-55 (1st Cir. 1992)). “The pendency of a parallel or related criminal proceeding
Case 4:26-cv-40129-DHH Document 35 Filed 10/13/26 Page 1 of 2

2
can constitute such a reason.” Id. (citing Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Berg, 61 F.3d 101, 105 (1st Cir.
1995)). The decision of whether to grant a stay under such circumstances is discretionary. See
id. (citing Acton Corp. v. Borden, Inc., 670 F.2d 377, 380 (1st Cir. 1982)).
Here, I find it prudent to maintain judicial efficiency and to safeguard Luu’s right against
self-incrimination by staying proceedings in this matter until conclusion of the criminal action.
The parties are directed to notify the Court within 14 days of the conclusion of the
criminal case, whether that be by an order of dismissal, acquittal, or sentencing.
So ordered.
/s/ David H. Hennessy
David H. Hennessy
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 4:26-cv-40129-DHH Document 35 Filed 10/13/26 Page 2 of 2