Halliday et al v. Spjute et al

Filing 138

ORDER Regarding Plaintiffs' 129 Motion to Stay signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 12/17/2012. (Martinez, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9

GLEN HALLIDAY, et al.,

10

Plaintiffs,

11
12

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

v.
KENT R. SPJUTE, et al.,

13

Defendants.

1:07-cv-00620 AWI GSA
ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFFS’
MOTION TO STAY
(Document 129)

14
15
INTRODUCTION1

16
17

Relevant Procedural Background

18

On November 16, 2012, Plaintiffs Glen Halliday, Ashley M. Ioane, Michael S. Ioane, Jr.,

19

Michael S. Ioane, Sr., and Shelly J. Ioane filed a Motion to Stay this matter. (Doc. 129.)

20

On November 21, 2012, the Government filed its opposition to the motion. (Doc. 132.)

21

On December 7, 2012, the undersigned issued a minute order, vacating the hearing on the

22

motion and taking the matter under submission pursuant to Local Rule 230(g). (Doc. 134.) For

23

the reasons that follow, the motion will be denied.2

24

//

25

//

26
27

1

The Court omits a recitation of facts as the facts are well known to all parties.

28

2

Plaintiffs’ reply to the Government’s opposition was stricken as untimely. (See Docs. 135 & 136.)

1

1

The Parties’ Positions

2

Plaintiffs assert as follows in support of their motion for a stay of these proceedings: (1)

3

Michael Scott Ioane Sr. “is now in prison and can’t take part in the prosecution” of this action;

4

(2) Defendants will not be prejudiced in their defense of the action by a stay pending the outcome

5

of Ioane’s criminal appeal; and (3) it is in the interests of justice to stay the matter. (Doc. 129-

6

2.)3

7

Defendant United States of America, on behalf of all federal defendants, contends that a

8

stay of these proceedings is unnecessary. More particularly, the Government points out that

9

Plaintiffs have not addressed the factors to be considered by the Court when presented with a

10

motion or request for stay, nor have they explained or supported the assertions they do make in

11

the motion. (Doc. 132.)

12

DISCUSSION

13

Applicable Legal Standards

14

A district court’s “power to stay proceedings is incidental to the power inherent in every

15

court to control the disposition of the causes on its docket with economy of time and effort for

16

itself, for counsel, and for litigants. How this can best be done calls for the exercise of judgment,

17

which must weigh competing interests and maintain an even balance.” Landis v. North American

18

Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254-255, 57 S.Ct. 163, 81 L.Ed. 153 (1936). “The power to stay proceedings

19

is incidental to the power inherent in every court to schedule disposition of the cases on its

20

docket so as to promote fair and efficient adjudication. How this can best be done is a decision

21

properly vested in the trial courts.” Gold v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp., 723 F.2d 1068, 1077

22

(3rd Cir. 1983).

23

Factors “regulating the issuance of a stay” include: “(1) whether the stay applicant has

24

made a strong showing that he is likely to succeed on the merits; (2) whether the applicant will

25

be irreparably injured absent a stay; (3) whether issuance of the stay will substantially injure the

26

other parties interested in the proceeding; and (4) where the public interest lies.” Hilton v.

27
28

3

The Court declines to take judicial notice of the documents as requested and referenced by the Plaintiffs.

2

1

Braunskill, 481 U.S. 770, 776, 107 S.Ct. 2113, 95 L.Ed.2d 724 (1987). Nonetheless, “[s]ince the

2

traditional stay factors contemplate individualized judgments in each case, the formula cannot be

3

reduced to a set of rigid rules.” Hilton, 481 U.S. at 777, 107 S.Ct. 2113, 95 L.Ed.2d 724.

4

In Keating v. Office of Thrift Supervision, 45 F.3d 322 (9th Cir. 1994), the Ninth Circuit

5

stated that, in addition to considering a defendant’s Fifth Amendment rights, courts should

6

consider the following factors when determining whether to impose a stay of civil proceedings

7

pending the outcome of criminal proceedings:

8
9
10
11

(1) the interest of the plaintiffs in proceeding expeditiously with this
litigation or any particular aspect of it, and the potential prejudice to plaintiffs of a
delay; (2) the burden which any particular aspect of the proceedings may impose
on defendants; (3) the convenience of the court in the management of its cases,
and the efficient use of judicial resources; (4) the interests of persons not parties to
the civil litigation; and (5) the interest of the public in the pending civil and
criminal litigation.

12

Keating, at 325, quoting Federal Sav. & Loan Ins. Corp. v. Molinaro, 889 F.2d 899, 902 (9th

13

Cir. 1989).

14

Analysis

15
16
17
18

Ioane’s Fifth Amendment Rights
Plaintiffs assert that, in the absence of a stay of these proceedings, Ioane Sr.’s Fifth
Amendment rights will be implicated. (Doc. 129.)
The Fifth Amendment provides that no person “shall be compelled in any criminal case to

19

be a witness against himself.” As it relates to this action, the docket4 in the Court’s case number

20

1:09-cr-00142-LJO reveals that Michael Scott Ioane was convicted in this Court of conspiracy

21

(18 U.S.C. § 371) and Presenting False or Fictitious Instrument or Document Purporting to be

22

Actual Security of the United States, Aiding and Abetting (18 U.S.C. § 514(a)(2) & (2)) and was

23

sentenced to a total of 108 months in prison. (See 09-cr-259, Docs. 194 & 196.) The amended

24

judgment was filed February 14, 2012. (See 09-cr-259, Doc. 196.) Further, according to the

25
26
27
28

4

A “court may take judicial notice of its own records in other cases, as well as the records of an inferior
court in other cases.” United States v. Wilson, 631 F.2d 118, 119 (9th Cir. 1980); accord In re Korean Air Lines,
Co., Ltd., 642 F.3d 685, 689 n.1 (9th Cir. 2011); United States v. Howard, 381 F.3d 873, 876 n.1 (9th Cir. 2004).
Further, it is unnecessary to take judicial documents already in the record. see e.g. Lew v. Bank Nat Ass’n, 2012 W L
1029227, * n. 1 (N.D. Ca. Mar. 26, 2012).

3

1

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals’ docket in Unites States of America v. Ioane, Docket Number 12-

2

10068, indicates the appeal is fully briefed and is pending decision. (See also Doc. 129-3, ¶ 5.)

3

As noted by the Government, Ioane has already testified in his own defense in the

4

criminal proceedings and has already given a deposition or depositions “regarding activities that

5

form the basis for his criminal conviction.” (Doc. 132 at 3.) Coupled with the fact that evidence

6

will not be taken by the Ninth Circuit in the now-pending appeal, this Court finds that Ioane’s

7

Fifth Amendment rights are no longer implicated for purposes of this proceeding.

8
9
10

Therefore, this factor weighs against the imposition of a stay of these proceedings.
Plaintiffs’ Interest in Proceeding
Plaintiffs do not address this factor specifically, although they do assert that Ioane Sr. “is

11

a vital part of the prosecution of this action” and that due to his incarceration his participation

12

will be difficult. (Doc. 129-2.) However, Plaintiffs have not provided any legal authority to

13

suggest that a stay is more appropriate where a party with an interest in the proceedings is

14

incarcerated and thus at a disadvantage with regard to participation in the proceedings.

15

Additionally, as pointed out by the Government, this matter should not “be held up by the

16

incarceration of only one of six plaintiffs.”

17
18
19
20

This factor, in the circumstances present here, weighs against the imposition of a stay of
these proceedings.
Burden on Defendants
The Government has not expressly addressed this factor in its opposition to Plaintiffs’

21

motion, however, it has noted that this Court has previously determined that a lifting of the

22

previously-imposed stay was proper and “that the circumstances militated against continuing

23

[that] stay.” (Doc. 132 at 3.)

24
25
26

This factor also weighs against the imposition of a stay of these proceedings.
Convenience and Efficiency
Plaintiffs argue it would be “in the interest of this court to stay this matter pending the

27

criminal appeal as many issues regarding this case would possibly be resolved by the outcome of

28

the criminal appeal.” (Doc. 129-2 at 3.) Relatedly, Plaintiffs contend that because “it is likely
4

1

that the appeal will be granted resulting in a complete dismissal of charges against Ioane or a new

2

trial for Ioane,” the Court should stay the matter “at the very least until the appeal is resolved.”

3

(Doc. 129-2 at 6.)

4

The Court notes that Plaintiffs have misconstrued the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals’

5

Order of March 20, 2012. Despite their assertions based upon their interpretation of that Order,

6

the appellate court’s order merely found that Ioane had met the standard for establishing a right

7

to bail pending appeal, to wit: he established by clear and convincing evidence that he was not

8

likely to flee or pose a danger to others, and that he had established that his appeal “raises a

9

‘substantial question’ of law or fact that is ‘fairly debatable,’ and that ‘if that substantial question

10

is determined favorably to [him] on appeal, that decision is likely to result in reversal or an order

11

for a new trial . . ..” Unites States of America v. Ioane, Docket Number 12-10068, Entry Number

12

11. Thus, the Ninth Circuit has not indicated that Ioane is likely to prevail on appeal. Instead, it

13

simply held that he had established his right to bail pending the outcome of his appeal. The

14

Ninth Circuit did not comment on the merits of the issues raised in the appeal, rather it simply

15

stated that those issues present a “‘substantial question’” of law or fact that “if” proven could

16

result in reversal or remand for retrial.

17

Further, parallel proceedings are those occurring simultaneously, meaning the criminal

18

trial proceedings are occurring simultaneous with the civil trial proceedings. The undersigned

19

finds that criminal appeal and civil trial proceedings do not occur simultaneous to or parallel

20

with one another. See Keating v. Office of Thrift Supervision, 45 F.3d at 324, citing Securities &

21

Exchange Comm’n v. Dresser Indus., 628 F.2d 1368, 1374 (D.C. Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S.

22

993, 101 S.Ct. 529, 66 L.Ed.2d 289 (1980).

23

For purposes of convenience and efficiency, this Court’s heavy caseload would only

24

benefit from resolution of this action as it has been pending for more than five years; Plaintiffs’

25

complaint was filed on April 24, 2007. (Doc. 1.) Additionally, after more than ten continuances

26

over the course of this litigation, an initial scheduling conference has been set for February 13,

27

2013 at 10:00 a.m. before the undersigned. These facts also weigh against a stay of these

28

proceedings.
5

1
2
3

Interests of Non-Parties
As no party has raised any concerns regarding third or non-party interests, the Court will
not consider this factor in its balancing.

4
5
6

Interest of the Public
As no party has addressed the interest of the public in the pending civil litigation, the
Court will not consider this factor in its balancing.

7
8
9

Other Factors Considered by the Court
Plaintiffs seem to assert that because a previous stay was imposed in this matter at the
request of the Government, this Court should grant their motion “in light of Mr. Ioane’s

10

incarceration and pending criminal appeal.” (Doc. 129-2 at 6.) It is noted that in 2008 Plaintiffs

11

opposed the previous stay and extensions of that stay (see Docs. 74, 84, 87) before ultimately

12

objecting, in 2011, to the Government’s motion to lift the stay following Ioane’s conviction

13

(Doc.103). In his order lifting the previously-imposed stay of these proceedings, Judge Ishii

14

noted “there is no longer any fear that civil discovery may be used to obtain privileged

15

information on the criminal prosecution.” (See Doc. 107 at 2.)

16
17
18

CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, having considered and weighed all relevant factors, Plaintiffs’
motion for a stay is DENIED.

19
20
21

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
6i0kij

December 17, 2012

/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
6