Short answer. No. Rule 15, Section 12 lists a motion to suspend proceedings without a temporary restraining order or injunction issued by a higher court among the motions that are not allowed. Without an actual TRO or injunction from a higher court behind it, that motion is prohibited.
What the law says
Motion to suspend proceedings without a temporary restraining order or injunction issued by a higher court
Rule 15, Section 12 — Prohibited motions. Read the full provision →
The list of motions this rule shuts down
Rule 15, Section 12 opens with a direct instruction: the following motions shall not be allowed. It then lists a specific set of motions that are barred outright, including a motion to dismiss outside a few named grounds, a motion to hear affirmative defenses, and a motion for reconsideration of the court's ruling on affirmative defenses. The motion you are describing appears on this same list, phrased in exactly the terms your question raises.
Why the restraining order requirement matters
The rule names the prohibited motion precisely: motion to suspend proceedings without a temporary restraining order or injunction issued by a higher court. The qualifier is doing the real work here. A motion to suspend proceedings is not banned outright; it is banned specifically when it is not backed by an actual TRO or injunction that a higher court has already issued. Asking the trial court to pause the case simply because a related matter is pending elsewhere, without that higher court's TRO or injunction in hand, falls squarely within what this rule forbids.
What would take your request outside the prohibition
Read the other way, the rule implies that a motion to suspend proceedings grounded in an actual TRO or injunction from a higher court is not on this prohibited list. If the related issue you are pursuing elsewhere has produced, or could produce, an actual restraining order or injunction from a higher court directed at your case, a suspension motion built on that order stands on different footing than one asking the court to pause the case on the strength of the related proceeding alone.
Why this rule is written so narrowly
This provision belongs to a rule generally aimed at limiting motions that can delay a case, so it treats an unsupported request to pause proceedings as exactly the kind of delay it is trying to prevent. A related matter pending in another forum is a common enough situation, and without this restriction, a party could routinely ask for a suspension any time some tangentially related issue was ongoing elsewhere. Requiring an actual TRO or injunction from a higher court keeps that power to interrupt the proceedings tied to a concrete judicial determination, rather than to a party's own assessment that the two matters are related.