not appealable just because they have the effect of delaying a federal suit. Id. 'Where a stay order required periodic reports on the progress of the state litigation, suggesting the district court’s “intention to monitor the stay periodically,” that order was not final and thus not appealable. Cheyney State Coll. Faculty v. Hufstedler, 703 F.2d 732, 736 (3d Cir.1983). Where a state decision was likely not going to make the federal suit res judicata, the district court’s stay was not appealable. Arny v. Phila. Transp. Co., 266 F.2d 869, 870 (3d Cir.1959). On the other hand, when a state court decision would render the federal suit subject to res judicata, stays are more likely to be final, appealable orders. See, e.g., Trent v. Dial Med. of Fla., Inc., 33 F.3d 217, 221 (3d Cir.1994) (<HOLDING>); In re Grand Jury Proceedings (U.S.
holding some res judicata effect from a foreign judgment was insufficient to make a stay immediately appealable holding that res judicata did not apply where a trial courts order was not a final judgment holding additional parties in second suit do not prevent the application of res judicata based on the first suit holding that a federal courts dismissal of state claims without prejudice is not res judicata as to adjudication in either state or federal courts holding a stay final and appealable when the state decision would constitute res judicata as to at least the two major issues in the federal suit