(PC) Tri v. Gutierrez ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 LY TRI, Case No.: 1:22-cv-00836 SKO (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT 13 v. GUTIERREZ’S MOTION TO STAY THE DEADLINE FOR THE FILING OF A 14 C. GUTIERREZ, et al., RESPONSIVE PLEADING 15 Defendants. (Doc. 17) 16 17 18 Plaintiff Ly Tri is proceeding pro se in this civil rights action brought pursuant to 42 19 U.S.C. § 1983. 20 I. INTRODUCTION 21 Following service of process on Defendants Gutierrez and McNutt, Defendant McNutt 22 filed a Motion to Dismiss for a lack of subject matter jurisdiction on July 26, 2023. (Doc. 16.) 23 Plaintiff’s opposition to the motion is due within 21 days of service of that motion. 24 On July 27, 2023, Defendant Gutierrez filed a Motion to Stay Responsive Pleading 25 Deadline Pending Court’s Ruling on Defendant McNutt’s Motion to Dismiss. (Doc. 17.) As to 26 this motion, the Court finds a response from Plaintiff unnecessary. 27 II. DISCUSSION 1 pleading pending the outcome of Defendant McNutt’s motion to dismiss. (Doc. 17.) Gutierrez 2 contends that if McNutt’s motion is granted, the case will proceed on Plaintiff’s First Amendment 3 claim against Gutierrez. (Id. at 3.) Should McNutt’s motion be denied, however, staying the 4 deadline for a responsive pleading would promote the interests of judicial economy and avoid 5 duplicity of pleadings. (Id. at 4.) Gutierrez requests the deadline for the filing of a responsive 6 pleading, whether solely as to Gutierrez or jointly as to both Gutierrez and McNutt, be extended 7 to “thirty days from the date of any ruling” on McNutt’s pending motion to dismiss. (Id.) 8 A district court has the inherent power to stay its proceedings. This power to stay is 9 “incidental to the power inherent in every court to control the disposition of the causes on its 10 docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants.” Landis v. North 11 American Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936); see also Federal Sav. & Loan Ins. Corp. v. Molinaro, 12 889 F.2d 899, 902 (9th Cir. 1989) (“A court may decide to stay the civil case when required by 13 the interests of justice”). 14 This Court finds a stay of Defendant Gutierrez’s deadline for the filing of a responsive 15 pleading, pending the outcome of Defendant McNutt’s motion to dismiss, promotes judicial 16 economy and benefits the litigants in this action by avoiding potentially duplicative pleading. 17 Landis, 299 U.S. at 254; see also, e.g., Smith v. Diaz, No. 20-cv-04335-HSG, 2022 WL 827644, 18 at *1 & n.1 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 18, 2022) (certain defendants moved to dismiss prisoner plaintiff’s 19 complaint; defendants not a party to the motion granted stay of responsive pleading deadline to 20 allow single answer to be filed); Steadman v. Bassett Furniture Industries, Inc., No. 13cv308 JSH 21 (RBB), 2014 WL 12577587, at *9 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 27, 2014) (defendant’s motion to stay deadline 22 to file answer granted to avoid duplicative pleadings while avoiding unnecessary delay following 23 motions to dismiss). 24 III. CONCLUSION AND ORDER 25 Accordingly, for the reasons given above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 26 1. Defendant Gutierrez’s motion to stay the responsive pleading deadline (Doc. 17) is 27 GRANTED; 1 STAYED pending the outcome of Defendant McNutt’s pending motion to dismiss; 2 and 3 3. Defendant Gutierrez SHALL file a responsive pleading within 30 days of the Court’s 4 final resolution1 of Defendant McNutt’s motion to dismiss. 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. 6 7 Dated: July 28, 2023 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto . UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 1 The Court will issue findings and recommendations concerning Defendant McNutt’s motion to dismiss following submission of the motion after briefing has concluded and in due course given this Court’s heavy caseload.