Cluster 572433 (1991)

Corp., 949 F.2d 695, 702 (3d Cir. 1991) (emphasis omitted) (quoting Gulfstream Aerospace Corp. v. Mayacamas Corp., 485 U.S. 271, 287-88 (1988)).

Rolo, 949 F.2d at 698. 16 About two weeks after the filing of this case, plaintiffs filed a proof of claim with the bankruptcy court, on behalf of all members of the NPA, a group of more than 5,000 individuals who had purchased property from GDC and its agents.

Rolo, 949 F.2d at 698.

Here, the District Court’s orders had the “practical effect” of denying injunctive relief, id. at 702, because Meenaxi sought permanent injunctions in its default judgment motions and did not receive them.

To the contrary, the District Court, in staying Jones’s ease, has properly “exercised its inherent power to control its docket so as to promote fair and efficient adjudication.” 2 Rolo v. General Dev’t Corp., 949 F.2d 695, 702 (3d Cir.1991). *?

Corp., GDV, 949 F.2d 695, 703 (3d Cir. 1991) (exercising jurisdiction when appellee was allegedly liquidating assets to render itself judgment-proof).

Corp., GDV, 949 F.2d 695, 703 (3d Cir.1991) (exercising jurisdiction when appellee was allegedly liquidating assets to render itself judgment-proof).

Cone ] that an order which does no more than establish the timetable for litigating the merits of a controversy resolves an important issue completely separate from the merits.” Rolo, 949 F.2d at 701 (internal quotations omitted).

Cone ] that an order which does no more than establish the timetable for litigating the merits of a controversy resolves an important issue completely separate from the merits." Rolo, 949 F.2d at 701 (internal quotations omitted).

Rolo v. General Development Corp., 949 F.2d 695, 703-04 (3d Cir.1991).

See, generally, Rolo v. General Development Corp., 949 F.2d 695 (3d Cir.1991) (stay order that merely delays resolution in the district court not reviewable under collateral order doctrine). 24 Based on the foregoing analysis, we come to the inevitable conclusion that the order granting a stay in this case is not an appealable order.

See, generally, Rolo v. General Development Corp., 949 F.2d 695 (3d Cir.1991) (stay order that merely delays resolution in the district court not reviewable under collateral order doctrine).

See Rolo v. General Development Corp., 949 F.2d 695, 700-02 (3d Cir.1991); Schall v. Joyce, 885 F.2d 101, 104-05 (3d Cir.1989); Commonwealth Ins.

See Rolo v. General Development Corp., 949 F.2d 695, 700-02 (3d Cir.1991); Scholl v. Joyce, 885 F.2d 101 , 104-05 (3d Cir.1989); Commonwealth Ins.

See Rolo, 949 F.2d at 701 (If issue involves "scrutiny of the merits of the controversy" it is not an issue separate from the merits.); Praxis Properties, 953 F.2d at 57 (same) (citing Van Cauwenberghe, 108 S.Ct. at 1953 ). 98 Moreover, the Commission's resolution of the tariff issue is subject to effective judicial review and so that prerequisite to Cohen jurisdiction is also absent.

See Rolo, 949 F.2d at 701 (If issue involves “scrutiny of the merits of the controversy” it is not an issue separate from the merits.); Praxis Properties, 953 F.2d at 57 (same) (citing Van Cauwenberghe, 108 S.Ct. at 1953 ).