Morrison v. Brancato ( 2021 )

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 AIMEE MORRISON, Case No.: 2:21-cv-00667-APG-EJY 4 Plaintiff Order Granting Motion to Stay Case 5 v. [ECF No. 24] 6 JOE BRONCATO and OSWEGO COUNTY, 7 Defendants 8 Defendants Joe Broncato and Oswego County move for a stay of the case because 9 plaintiff Aimee Morrison files numerous “notices of motion” that are rogue filings to which the 10 defendants should not have to respond. Morrison did not respond. 11 A district court has the inherent power to stay cases to control its docket and promote the 12 efficient use of judicial resources. Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254–55 (1936); 13 Dependable Highway Exp., Inc. v. Navigators Ins. Co., 498 F.3d 1059, 1066 (9th Cir. 2007). 14 When determining whether to stay a case pending the resolution of another case, I must consider 15 (1) the possible damage that may result from a stay, (2) any “hardship or inequity” that a party 16 may suffer if required to go forward, (3) “and the orderly course of justice measured in terms of 17 the simplifying or complicating of issues, proof, and questions of law” that a stay will engender. 18 Lockyer v. Mirant Corp., 398 F.3d 1098, 1110 (9th Cir. 2005). I find that a Landis stay is 19 appropriate here. 20 Morrison did not respond to the motion, so she has not identified a harm that would result 21 from the stay. The defendants will suffer a hardship if they must respond to the many notices 22 that Morrison files that are rambling and appear to have no purpose other than cluttering up the 23 docket. Magistrate Judge Youchah recently advised Morrison that her “repeated Notice of Motion filings are inappropriate and unnecessary,” and she advised Morrison to “cease filing 2|| these documents absent an order from the Court to do so.” ECF No. 47. Despite Judge Youchah’s order, Morrison filed two more notices, including one in which she asserts she is an 4!| endangered species. ECF Nos. 48, 49. Finally, relieving the defendants of the burden of having to respond to Morrison’s notices serves the orderly course of justice. 6 I therefore grant the defendants’ motion to stay the case until I resolve the pending case dispositive motions. Morrison is again directed not to file “notices” in this case. If she nevertheless does so, the defendants need not respond. Morrison is advised that repeated failures to follow court orders may result in sanctions, including dismissal of this action with prejudice. 10 I THEREFORE ORDER that the defendants’ motion to stay the case (ECF No. 24) is GRANTED. This case is STAYED pending further order of the court. 12 DATED this 3rd day of August, 2021. 13 OI 4 ANDREWP.GORDON. 15 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23