Mena v. Kern High School District et al
Filing
12
ORDER GRANTING Motion to Stay 8 , signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 9/30/2013. CASE STAYED until November 1, 2013. Initial Scheduling Conference CONTINUED to 12/12/2013 at 09:30 AM at the United States Courthouse, 510 19th Street (JLT), Bakersfield, before Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston. (Hall, S)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
ROBERT MENA,
Plaintiff,
12
v.
13
14
KERN HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al.,
15
Defendants.
16
) Case No.: 1:13-cv-00650 AWI JLT
)
) ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO STAY
)
) (Doc. 8)
)
)
)
)
)
Before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to stay the action. (Doc. 8) The basis for this motion is
17
18
that Plaintiff is maintaining an action against the defendants in state court based upon the same factual
19
circumstances as this federal court action. Id. at 1-3. However, the state court action does not contain
20
the 42 U.S.C. § 1983 cause of action that this federal action contains. Id. Counsel reports he
21
discovered that his earlier appraisal of the case related to the § 1983 cause of action was incorrect. Id.
22
Initially, he believed Plaintiff could not maintain a § 1983 cause of action to vindicate a First
23
Amendment right. Id. Due to the running of the statute of limitations and his inability to file the
24
motion to amend the state court action to include this claim within the limitation period, Plaintiff filed
25
his second action in this Court. Id.
Plaintiff has filed his motion to amend to include the § 1983 action in the state court case.
26
27
(Doc. 11 at 2) The hearing on this motion will be on October 18, 2013. Id.
28
///
1
1
II.
Motion to Stay
2
A.
Legal Standards
3
The Supreme Court explained the “power to stay proceedings is incidental to the power
4
inherent in every court to control the disposition of the causes on its docket with economy of time and
5
effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants.” Landis v. North American Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254-255
6
(1936). To evaluate whether to stay an action, the Court must the weigh competing interests that will
7
be affected by the grant or refusal to grant a stay, including: (1) the possible damage which may result
8
from the granting of a stay; (2) the hardship or inequity which a party may suffer in being required to
9
go forward; and (3) the orderly course of justice measured in terms of simplifying or complicating of
10
issues, proof, and questions of law which could be expected to result from a stay. CMAX, Inc. v. Hall,
11
300 F.2d 265, 268 (9th Cir. 1962) (citing Landis, 299 U.S. at 254-55)).
12
The party seeking a stay “bears the burden of establishing its need.” Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S.
13
681, 708 (1997) (citing Landis, 299 U.S. at 255). The Supreme Court explained, “If there is even a fair
14
possibility that the stay . . . will work damage to some one else,” the party seeking the stay “must
15
make out a clear case of hardship or inequity.” Landis, 299 U.S. at 255. The decision whether to
16
grant or deny a stay is committed to the discretion of the Court. Dependable Highway Express, Inc. v.
17
Navigators Ins. Co., 498 F.3d 1059, 1066 (9th Cir. 2007).
18
Here, there seems to be no prejudice if the matter is stayed to determine whether the § 1983
19
will be joined with the remaining causes of action already going forward in state court. Moreover, if
20
the motion is granted, this would result in a reduction in the number of actions defendants would have
21
to defend and this is a benefit to them and preserves limited judicial resources.
22
ORDER
23
Based upon the foregoing, the Court ORDERS:
24
1.
The motion to stay (Doc. 8) is GRANTED through November 1, 2013;
25
2.
Plaintiff SHALL:
26
a.
File a status report no later than November 1, 2013 detailing the results of the
27
motion to amend the complaint in the state court action or, if the motion is granted, Plaintiff
28
SHALL file a request for dismissal no later than November 1, 2013;
2
b.
1
In the event the motion to amend the complaint in the state court action is denied,
2
Plaintiff SHALL file proof of service of the summons and complaint on the defendants no later
3
than November 8, 2013.
4
3.
The scheduling conference is CONTINUED to December 12, 2013 at 9:30 a.m.
5
6
7
8
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
September 30, 2013
/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?