Lull v. County of Sacramento ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CHRISTOPHER LULL, No. 2:20-cv-00165-KJM-CKD PS 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 14 COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Presently before the court is defendants’ motion to dismiss. (ECF No. 12.) Plaintiff has 18 filed an opposition, and defendants have filed a reply. (ECF Nos. 14, 15.) Defendants make 19 multiple arguments as to why dismissal is proper but, in the alternative, request that this matter be 20 stayed until a summary judgment motion in the related case is resolved. (See ECF No. 12.) 21 District courts have the inherent power to stay a lawsuit. Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 22 248, 254-55 (1936). If an independent and related case is pending, in certain circumstances 23 federal courts may stay the instant suit while the independent proceeding moves forward. 24 Dependable Highway Exp., Inc. v. Navigators Ins. Co., 498 F.3d 1059, 1066 (9th Cir. 2007); 25 Leyva v. Certified Grocers of California, Ltd., 593 F.2d 857, 863 (9th Cir. 1979). 26 To determine whether a Landis stay is appropriate, courts weigh the following competing 27 interests: (1) whether there is a fair possibility that a stay will cause damage; (2) whether a party 28 may suffer hardship or inequity if a stay is not imposed; and (3) whether a stay will contribute to 6wOAIDS 2 OU VEY INT NS NES MUO, LO PO eA ee 1 | the orderly course of justice. CMAX, Inc. v. Hall, 300 F.2d 265, 268 (9th Cir. 1962). 2 | Additionally, a Landis stay (4) cannot be imposed only for judicial economy and (5) cannot be 3 | indefinite and result in undue delay. Dependable Highway Exp.. Inc., 498 F.3d at 1066-67. A 4 | stay may be the most efficient and fairest course when there are “independent proceedings which 5 | bear upon the case.” Leyva v. Certified Grocers of Cal., Ltd., 593 F.2d 857, 863 (9th Cir.1979). 6 The case related to the present action has a pending motion for summary judgment. 7 | Autotek Inc. and Christopher Lull v. County of Sacramento, et. al., Case No. 2:16-cv-01093 KJM 8 | CKD, ECF No. 70. Defendants, in an alternative argument to their motion to dismiss, request that 9 | this matter be stayed pending the resolution of the related case summary judgment motion so as to 10 | avoid duplication of judicial effort and the potential risk of inconsistent judgments. (ECF No. 12 11 } at 23.) Plaintiff, although mentioning the related case in his opposition, has not responded to this 12 | portion of defendants’ motion. (See ECF No. 14.) 13 Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that, within fourteen (14) days plaintiff is ordered 14 || to show cause why this matter should not be stayed until the summary judgment motion in the 15 || related case is resolved. The matter shall thereafter stand submitted. 16 | Dated: May 1, 2020 Gh rd f | Gx 7 CAROLYN K.DELANEY 18 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 19 20 21 16.165.stay osc 22 23 24 25 26 27 28