Sutton v. Management & Training Corporation (MTC)

Filing 22

ORDER DENYING Defendant's Motion to Stay Without Prejudice 17 , signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 11/13/2013. (Hall, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

BRUCE DWIGHT SUTTON,
Plaintiff,

12
v.

13
14

MANAGEMENT & TRAINING
CORPORATION and JOHN DOES 1-9,

15

Defendants.

16

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 1:13-cv-01344 - AWI - JLT
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO
STAY WITHOUT PREJUDICE
(Doc. 17)

Defendant Management & Training Corporation (“MTC” or “Defendant”) seeks the entry of a

17
18

stay in this action. (Doc. 17.) Plaintiff Bruce Sutton filed his opposition to the motion to stay on

19

October 9, 2013 (Doc. 19), to which Defendant filed a reply on November 1, 2013. (Doc. 20.) The

20

Court determined the matter was suitable for decision without oral arguments, and the motion was

21

taken under submission pursuant to Local Rule 230(g) on November 6, 2013. (Doc. 21.) For the

22

following reasons, Defendant’s motion for a stay is DENIED.

23

I.

24

Background and Procedural History
Plaintiff initiated this action by filing a complaint against MTC on August 22, 2013. (Doc. 1.)

25

Plaintiff alleges MTC held a contract with the United States of America to operate Taft Correctional

26

Institution, and MTC’s “officers, agents and/or employees negligently and recklessly exposed the

27

Plaintiff to the potentially deadly disease known as Coccidioidomycosis (also known as “Valley

28

Fever”, “San Joaquin Valley Fever”, and “Cocci”)” at the correctional facility. (Doc. 1 at 2, ¶ 2.)
1

1

According to Plaintiff, MTC was “on notice of the risk of harm from cocci and failed to take actions to

2

protect Plaintiff from that harm.” (Id. at 6, ¶ 16.) Specifically, Plaintiff alleges:
[He] was not provided any special protective breathing masks or other devices, and to
his knowledge there was no special air conditioning equipment employed by the facility
to filter out the dust occurring in the local environment. Nor was there any prohibition
of outdoor activities during dusty conditions. Nor was anything done to keep the dust
that forms that basis of the facility covered with grass or shrubs. Nor was that dust ever
watered down or oiled down. Nor were inmates kept inside during windy conditions.
As a result of these errors, Plaintiff contracted Cocci.

3
4
5
6
7

(Id. at 11-12, ¶ 41.) Plaintiff reports he was diagnosed with Valley Fever shortly after November 7,

8

2011, and alleges that “[a]s a result of [the] valley fever infection, Plaintiff will require lifetime medical

9

supervision, treatment, and in all likelihood, medication. (Id. at 12, ¶¶42, 47.)
Plaintiff asserts he has made an administrative claim that is currently pending against the

10
11

Government and, “in the event that [his] claim to the USA is not resolved, [he] may move to add the

12

USA as a party to this action.” (Doc. 1 at 3, ¶5.)
Defendant MTC filed their answer to Plaintiff’s complaint on September 19, 2013 (Doc. 14). In

13
14

addition, MTC filed the motion to stay now pending before the Court, asserting the matter should be

15

stayed pending resolution of Plaintiff’s claim against the Government. (Doc. 17).

16

II.

17

Legal Standards
The Supreme Court explained the “power to stay proceedings is incidental to the power inherent

18

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

19

itself, for counsel, and for litigants.” Landis v. North American Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254-255 (1936). To

20

evaluate whether to stay an action, the Court must the weigh competing interests that will be affected

21

by the grant or refusal to grant a stay. CMAX, Inc. v. Hall, 300 F.2d 265, 268 (9th Cir. 1962). Among

22

these competing interests are: (1) the possible damage from the granting of a stay; (2) the hardship or

23

inequity a party may suffer in being required to go forward; (3) the orderly course of justice measured

24

in terms of simplifying or complicating of issues, proof, and questions of law which could be expected

25

to result from a stay; (4) “ the interests of the plaintiffs in proceeding expeditiously with this litigation;”

26

and (5) “the convenience of the court in the management of its cases and the efficient use of judicial

27

resources.” Id. (citing Landis, 229 U.S. at 254-55); Fed Sav. & Loan Ins. Corp. v. Molinaro, 889 F.2d

28

899, 903 (9th Cir. 1989).
2

1

The party seeking a stay “bears the burden of establishing its need.” Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S.

2

681, 708 (1997) (citing Landis, 299 U.S. at 255). The Supreme Court explained, “If there is even a fair

3

possibility that the stay . . . will work damage to some one else,” the party seeking the stay “must make

4

out a clear case of hardship or inequity.” Landis, 299 U.S. at 255. The decision whether to grant or

5

deny a stay is committed to the Court’s discretion. Dependable Highway Express, Inc. v. Navigators

6

Ins. Co., 498 F.3d 1059, 1066 (9th Cir. 2007).

7

III.

8
9

Discussion and Analysis
Defendant observes that this action “is one of six related lawsuits brought by plaintiff’s counsel

against Taft,” and that “Plaintiff’s counsel has filed nearly-identical litigation in this district in the

10

related cases Edison v. United States of America, et al., 1:12-cv-2026, and Nuwintore v. United States

11

of America, et al., 1:13-CV-00967.” (Doc. 17 at 3, 4.) The Government was identified as a defendant

12

in both Edison and Nuwintore, but has not been named as a defendant in the remaining related cases.

13

Defendant notes the plaintiffs in Edison and Nuwintore alleged “[the] USA retained control over

14

policy-implementation, including policies developed to address the Coccidioidomycosis” and “MTC

15

was obligated to implement all of the USA and/or BOP’s policies.”1 (Doc. 17 at 5.) Based upon the

16

allegations in Edison and Nuwintore, Defendant asserts “the[r]e is good reason to believe that plaintiff

17

will name USA as a defendant after the federal tort claim process has completed, and that the claims

18

between USA and MTC will be interrelated.” (Id.) Therefore, Defendant concludes the entry of a stay

19

is appropriate “to ensure that all parties which plaintiff intends to litigate are brought into the case” and

20

“to conserve both judicial economy and the parties’ resources and to avoid duplication of discovery.”

21

(Id. at 4, 5.)

22

On the other hand, Plaintiff argues a stay should not be entered in this action pending resolution

23

of his administrative claim against the Government. Plaintiff asserts he “wishes to resolve this claim as

24

expeditiously as possible,” and that “[i]t is not certain that [he] will bring a claim against the USA.”

25

(Doc. 19 at 3.) Plaintiff observes, “the Court granted a motion to dismiss brought by the United States

26

of America” in Edison, and as a result it is not certain that a claim against the Government would stand.

27
28

1

Notably, similar allegations have not been made by Plaintiff in this action.

3

1

(Id. at 2, 4.) According to Plaintiff, “MTC has not identified how the stay would contribute to the

2

convenience of the court or how it would make the use of judicial resources more efficient.” (Id. at 3.)

3

He observes MTC fails to “identify what discovery or litigation would be duplicative” or “any burden

4

MTC will experience in the absence of a stay.” (Id. at 4.) Therefore, Plaintiff concludes MTC’s

5

motion to stay the action should be denied.

6

In reply, Defendant again asserts that “allowing this case to proceed before the USA officially

7

becomes a party would cause duplicative discovery and litigation.” (Doc. 20 at 2.) Specifically,

8

Defendant asserts: “The depositions of plaintiff, Warden Benov, and plaintiff’s medical providers

9

would be taken twice. Expert discovery, including expert disclosures and depositions of the parties’

10

experts, would not only need to be repeated, it would also be complicated.” (Id.) Further, Defendant

11

asserts that, “[a]lthough Plaintiff speculates [the Government]…has most of the discovery it would

12

need from Fekrat v. USA, et. al. 2:13-cv-00594-MMM-PJW, this case is not identical to Fekrat.” (Id.)

13

Defendant observes the plaintiffs “have unique medical histories, were incarcerated at Taft

14

Correctional Institute at different times, and have different characteristics which impact whether each

15

plaintiff is at higher risk for developing the disseminated form of Coccidioidomycosis.” (Id.)

16

Significantly, this case has not been scheduled by the Court, and there are no deadlines pending

17

for the parties. Although Plaintiff has filed an administrative claim against the Government, his

18

complaint against MTC makes no mention of factual allegations similar to those in Edison and

19

Nuwintore, and Plaintiff places the responsibility for the implementation of preventative measures on

20

MTC in his complaint. Further, it is unclear whether a claim may proceed against the Government in

21

this action, given this Court’s ruling in Edison.

22

Defendant has not identified any hardship MTC face at this time in being required to go forward

23

in this action. Rather all harm identified is speculative if the Government is added as a defendant and if

24

the Court determines—contrary to its recent holding in Edison—that a claim against the Government

25

may proceed. Simply put, there is no showing that these harms are likely to occur. Moreover, stays of

26

an indefinite period of time, as is requested here, are disfavored. Yong v. INS, 208 F.3d 1116, 1119 (9th

27

Cir. 2000); see also Dependable Highway Exp, Inc. v. Navigators Ins. Co., 498 F.3d 1059, 1066-67b

28

(9th Cir. 2007). Thus, at this time, it is in the interest of the course of justice for the action to proceed.
4

1
2

IV.

Conclusion
Defendant has not set forth “a clear case of hardship” if the action were to proceed, and the

3

factors set forth by the Ninth Circuit in CMAX, Inc. and Molinaro weigh in favor of the action

4

proceeding without the entry of a stay. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: Defendant’s

5

motion to stay the proceedings (Doc. 17) is DENIED without prejudice.

6
7
8
9

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

November 13, 2013

/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5