U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Farmers Insurance Exchange

Filing 8

ORDER on Ex Parte Notice and Motion to Lift Stay. The stay, entered on October 2, 2013 (Docket No. 6), is LIFTED. Order signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 10/24/2013. (Timken, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT
OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,

11

Plaintiff,

12
13

vs.

14

FARMERS INSURANCE
EXCHANGE,
16
Defendant(s).
15

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 1:13-CV-1574 AWI SKO
EX PARTE NOTICE AND
MOTION TO LIFT STAY;
ORDER THEREON
The Hon. Sheila K. Oberto
Date: November 18, 2013
Time: 8:30am

17
18

On September 30, 2013, funding for the federal government lapsed. As a

19

result of this lapse in funding, Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity

20

Commission (“EEOC”) moved the court to stay these proceeding as counsel for the

21

EEOC was prohibited from working on this matter during the federal government

22

shutdown.

23

On October 2, 2013, the Court granted the motion to stay for the duration of

24

the government shutdown and ordering that “Plaintiff shall file a notice with the

25

Court within three (3) court days after funding is restored along with a proposed

26

order lifting this stay.” (Docket No. 6).

27
28

-1-

1

On October 17, 2013, funding for the federal government was restored and

2

Plaintiff EEOC resumed operations. Plaintiff EEOC is unaware of any deadlines

3

that have passed or dates which have been affected by the stay.

4

District courts possess “the inherent procedural power to reconsider, rescind,

5

or modify an interlocutory order” when it finds sufficient cause to do so. See City

6

of Los Angeles, Harbor Div. v. Santa Monica Baykeeper, 254 F.3d 882, 885 (9th

7

Cir. 2001). “The same court that imposes a stay of litigation has the inherent

8

power and discretion to lift the stay.” Canady v. Erbe Elektromedizin GmbH, 271

9

F.Supp.2d 64, 74 (D.D.C. 2002). “When circumstances have changed such that the

10

court's reasons for imposing the stay no longer exist or are inappropriate, the court

11

may lift the stay.” Id. Here, the Court granted the stay as counsel for the EEOC

12

was prohibited, pursuant to the Antideficiency Act, from working on this matter

13

during the government shutdown. As funding has now been restored, Plaintiff

14

EEOC respectfully requests that the Court lift the stay in these proceedings.

15
16

Respectfully submitted,

17
18
19

Dated: October 24, 2013

_/s/ Rumduol Vuong_________
RUMDUOL VUONG,
Trial Attorney
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT
OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

-2-

ORDER

1
2
3

FOR GOOD CAUSE SHOWING, THIS COURT HEREBY ORDERS
that the stay, entered on October 2, 2013 (Docket No. 6), is LIFTED.

4
5

IT IS SO ORDERED.

6
7

Dated:

October 24, 2013

/s/ Sheila K. Oberto
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

-3-