Jimenez v. San Diego Family Housing, LLC ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JAMES JIMENEZ, an individual; HOPE ) Case No.: 3:21-cv-00027-BEN-AGS SCOTT, an individual; L.J., a minor, by ) 12 and through her guardian ad litem, CHERI ) ORDER GRANTING JOINT 13 SCOTT; M.J., a minor, by and through her ) MOTION TO STAY guardian ad litem, CHERI SCOTT, ) 14 ) [ECF No. 21] Plaintiff, 15 ) v. ) 16 ) SAN DIEGO FAMILY HOUSING, LLC, 17 a California limited liability company; ) ) 18 LINCOLN MILITARY PROPERTY ) MANAGEMENT, L.P., a Delaware 19 limited partnership; DOES 1 through 50, ) ) 20 Defendant. ) 21 I. INTRODUCTION 22 Plaintiffs James Jimenez, an individual; Hope Scott, an individual; L.J., a minor, 23 by and through her guardian ad litem, Cheri Scott; M.J., a minor, by and through her 24 guardian ad litem, Cheri Scott (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) bring this action against 25 Defendants San Diego Family Housing, LLC, a California limited liability company; 26 Lincoln Military Property Management, L.P., a Delaware limited partnership 27 (collectively, “Defendants”) relating to alleged uninhabitable conditions at their military 28 housing. ECF No. 1 at 2-3, ¶ 1. Before the Court is the Joint Motion to Stay (the “Joint 1 Motion”). ECF No. 21. After considering the papers submitted, supporting 2 documentation, and applicable law, the Court GRANTS the Joint Motion. 3 II. BACKGROUND 4 This matter is one of five cases involving allegations of untenable living conditions 5 at various military housing properties. The other three, earlier-filed cases are Vincent v. 6 San Diego Family Housing, LLC, 3:20-cv-1794-LAB-DEB; Spangler v. San Diego 7 Family Housing, LLC, 3:20-cv-2287-W-DEB; and Huffman v. San Diego Family 8 Housing, LLC, 3:20-cv-2514-H-JLB (collectively, the “Related Cases”). 9 A. Statement of Facts 10 Plaintiffs allege that they lived and occupied their former military housing located 11 at 10276 Taussig Court, San Diego, California 92124 beginning on or about August 6, 12 2018. Complaint, ECF No. 1-2 (“Compl.”) at 3,1 ¶ 1, 5, ¶¶ 12-13. They plead that during 13 their tenancy, they discovered various defective conditions, such as, inter alia, microbial 14 growth and peeling paint, which Defendants failed to timely repair. Id. at 5-6, ¶¶ 15-16. 15 B. Procedural History 16 On November 24, 2020, Plaintiffs filed their Complaint with the San Diego County 17 Superior Court, alleging causes of action for (1) negligence; (2) nuisance; (3) constructive 18 (wrongful) eviction; (4) negligent misrepresentation; (5) negligent infliction of emotional 19 distress; (6) breach of rental agreement; (7) breach of implied warranty of habitability; 20 (8) breach of implied covenant of quiet use and enjoyment; (9) rent abatement; and (10) 21 negligence against contractor working on the premises. Compl. at 1. 22 On January 8, 2020, Defendants timely removed the case, ECF No. 1, and on 23 January 15, 2021, they filed an Answer to the Complaint. See ECF No. 4. On March 19, 24 2021, Magistrate Judge Andrew G. Schopler granted the parties’ joint motion to 25 consolidate this case with the Related Cases for pretrial purposes. ECF No. 10. 26 On July 27, 2021, Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss this case pursuant to Rule 27 1 Unless otherwise indicated, all page number references are to the ECF-generated 28 1 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, arguing that Defendants qualify as 2 government contractors entitled to derivative sovereign immunity. ECF No. 13 at 6:6-16. 3 Defendants filed the same motion in all Related Cases. See Joint Motion, ECF No. 16 at 4 2:19-22. Thus, on August 18, 2021, the parties moved to continue the hearing date and 5 responsive briefing deadlines for Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss to permit the parties to 6 engage in consolidated jurisdictional discovery before opposing Defendants’ motion. Id. 7 at 2:19-3:4. On August 24, 2021, the Court granted this request, and re-set the hearing 8 date in this case to October 18, 2021. See Minute Order, ECF No. 17. 9 On September 29, 2021, the Parties filed this Joint Motion to Stay the Case pending 10 global settlement of this case and all Related Cases. Joint Motion, ECF No. 21 at 2:1-4. 11 III. LEGAL STANDARD 12 A court’s decision to grant a stay is discretionary, “dependent upon the 13 circumstances of the particular case.” Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 432 (2009). The 14 movant bears the burden of showing the circumstances justifying a stay. Id. at 433-34; see 15 Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 708 (1997). A court may stay proceedings incidental to its 16 power “to control the disposition of the causes on its docket with economy of time and 17 effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants.” Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 18 (1936). In determining whether a stay is appropriate, a federal court considers the (1) 19 “possibility damage may result from the granting of a stay,” (2) “hardship or inequity which 20 a party may suffer in being required to go forward,” and (3) “orderly course of justice 21 measured in terms of the simplifying or complicating of issues, proof, and questions of law 22 which could be expected to result from a stay.” CMAX, Inc. v. Hall, 300 F.2d 265, 268 23 (9th Cir. 1962) (citing Landis, 299 U.S. at 254-55). 24 IV. DISCUSSION 25 The Parties seek a Court Order approving their Joint Motion to Stay Proceedings 26 for ninety (90) days, including discovery and all pretrial deadlines imposed by the Local 27 Rules and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, to allow the Parties to continue settlement 28 discussions. Joint Motion, ECF No. 21 at 2:1-6. They note that “[t]he requested stay 1 || would also have the benefit of potentially allowing time for issuance of an opinion by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in Childs v. San Diego Family Housing, LLC, et al., 3 || [Appeal] No. 20-56049, addressing the same derivative sovereign immunity issue that is 4|| the subject of Defendants’ motion to dismiss in this matter,” which the Ninth Circuit took 5 || under submission on August 31, 2021. Jd. at 2:23-3:4. 6 Given the length of the stay is only ninety (90) days, the purpose of the stay is to facilitate settlement, and neither party opposes the stay, the Court grants the stay after 8 || concluding that (1) little to no damage will result from the stay, (2) no parties will suffer 9 ||inequity as a result of the stay, and (3) the orderly course of justice measured in terms of simplifying issues warrants granting the stay. CONCLUSION 12 For the above reasons, the Court GRANTS the Joint Motion as follows: 13 1. This case is stayed for ninety (90) days, at which point the stay will expire on 14|| Thursday, December 30, 2021. 15 2. If the parties fail to file a Notice of Dismissal pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A) of 16|| the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure before December 30, 2021, then, the following dates 17 || will apply: 18 a. A status conference will be held in Courtroom 5A on Monday, January 2022, at 10:30 a.m. 20 b. Given the Parties have not addressed whether the pending Motion to 21 || Dismiss is withdrawn in light of the settlement, the below dates will apply to that Motion: 22 C. Plaintiffs’ opposition brief will be due on Thursday, January 6, 2022. 23 d. Defendants’ reply brief will be due on Thursday, January 13, 2022. 24 e. Unless submitted on the papers, the hearing on Defendants’ Motion to 25 || Dismiss will take place on Monday, January 17, 2022. 26 3. All remaining deadlines and dates set forth in this matter are hereby vacated. 27 IT IS SO ORDERED. 28|| DATED: September 30, 2021 4. HON. ROGER T. BENITE