Sanchez v. W.W. Grainger, Inc. ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JENYFER FARIAS SANCHEZ, Case No. 1:23-cv-01028-JLT-HBK individually and on behalf of all others 12 similarly situated, ORDER GRANTING JOINT MOTION TO STAY CASE PENDING MEDIATION 13 Plaintiff, (Doc. No. 11) 14 v. ORDER DIRECTING THE CLERK OF 15 W.W. GRAINGER, INC., COURT TO AUTOMATICALLY LIFT STAY ON SEPTEMBER 25, 2023 16 Defendant. 17 18 Pending before the Court is the Parties’ joint motion to stay this case pending mediation. 19 (Doc. No. 11). The Parties request the Court to grant a limited stay of this action until September 20 25, 2023, in order that they may dedicate their resources to prepare for mediation scheduled for 21 August 24, 2023. (Id. at 2, ¶ 1). The Parties agree to informally exchange documents and 22 materials for purposes of the mediation, but otherwise seeks a stay of all formal discovery and 23 deadlines. (Id., ¶¶ 3, 4). Finally, the Parties agree that Defendant’s initial response to the 24 Complaint will be due on September 25, 2023, when the stay if automatically lifted. (Id., ¶¶ 3, 5). 25 The court is vested with broad discretion to stay a case. Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 26 705 (1997) (citing Landis v. North American Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936)). The “party 27 requesting a stay bears the burden of showing that the circumstances justify an exercise of that 28 discretion.” Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 433-34 (2009). As a rule, “stays should not be 1 | indefinite in nature.” Dependable Highway Exp., Inc. v. Navigators Ins. Co., 498 F.3d 1059, 2 | 1066-67 (9th Cir. 2007). If a stay is especially long or indefinite, a greater showing is required to 3 || justify it and the court must “balance the length of any stay against the strength of the justification 4 | given for it.” Yong v. LN.S., 208 F.3d 1116, 1119 (9th Cir. 2000). 5 The parties have met their burden to justify a stay of this action. The period of the stay is 6 | relatively short and tied to period of mediation. 7 Accordingly, it is ORDERED: 8 1. The Parties’ joint motion to stay this case pending mediation (Doc. No. 11) is 9 GRANTED and this action is stayed until September 25, 2023. 10 2. Ifthe Parties settle this matter, they shall promptly file a notice of settlement as 11 required by Local Rule 160(a). 12 3. Defendant shall file its initial response to the Complaint no later than September 25, 13 2023. 14 4. The Clerk of Court shall automatically lift the stay on September 25, 2023. 15 '© | Dated: _ July 26, 2023 Mihaw. Wh. foareh Zaskth 17 HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA ig UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28