FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION

RENEE HARRIS TOLIVER, Magistrate Judge.

Pursuant to the District Court's Order of Referral, Doc. 34, this case is before the Court on Defendant's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction or, Alternatively, Motion to Stay, Doc. 21. For the reasons that follow, Defendant's dismissal motion should be DENIED and its request for a stay of these proceedings should be GRANTED.

Defendant is a company that has been accused, in both civil and criminal cases, of putting weight loss/muscle building products on the market that contain dangerous ingredients. This case is a declaratory judgment action filed by an excess liability insurer seeking a determination as to coverage liability. Defendant has moved to dismiss the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, arguing that the case is not ripe since the underlying insurance has not yet been exhausted. Doc. 22 at 4. Alternatively, Defendant moves for a stay pending resolution of federal criminal proceedings that have been filed against it and several of its corporate officers. Doc. 21 at 5; see United States v. USPLabs, et al., Case 3:15-CR-00496-L (N.D. Tex.).

This case is almost identical in both substance and procedural posture to Gemini Ins. Co. v. USPLabs, LLC, Case No. 15-CV-3293-K-BK, with the exception that the cases involve different ingredients. USP filed a motion to dismiss and for a stay in that case as well, raising the same arguments as are raised herein. See Case No. 15-CV-3293-K-BK at Doc. #21. On March 24, 2016, District Judge Kinkeade denied the motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and stayed the case pending the outcome of the criminal proceedings. Case No. 15-CV-3293-K-BK at Doc. #42. Upon review of Judge Kinkeade's order, the parties' pleadings, and the case law cited therein, as well as for the sake of consistency, the undersigned recommends that this case also be stayed pending resolution of United States v. USPLabs, et al., Case 3:15-CR-00496-L, for substantially the same reasons as those set forth in Judge Kinkeade's order. Case No. 15-CV-3293-K-BK at Doc. #42; see also Case No. 15-CV-03195-L-BK at Doc. 41 (Supplemental brief in support of dismissal motion including a copy of Judge Kinkeade's order).

For the reasons set forth above, the Court should DENY Defendant's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction and GRANT Defendant's Motion to Stay, Doc. 21.

SO RECOMMENDED.