Vega v. Weatherford U.S., Limited Partnership et al

Filing 56

ORDER GRANTING 55 Stipulation to Stay the Matter, signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 11/5/2015. CASE STAYED. Joint Status Report due by 4/22/2016. (Hall, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12

STEPHANIE A. VEGA, as an individual,
and on behalf of all others similarly
situated,

13

Case No. 1:14-cv-01790 JLT
ORDER GRANTING STIPULATION TO
STAY THE MATTER

Plaintiff,
(Doc. 55)

14
15

v.
WEATHERFORD U.S., LIMITED
PARTNERSHIP, et al.,

16
Defendants.
17
18
19

In this action, Plaintiff seeks to impose class-based liability based upon her claims Defendant

20

committed various Labor Code violations, including failing to pay overtime wages, failing to

21

provide timely meal periods and failure to provide all rest breaks. (Doc. 44 at 5-7) The parties have

22

agreed to attempt to resolve this matter through a private mediation they have scheduled in March

23

2016. (Doc. 55 at 2) Though the parties have agreed to conduct informal discovery to facilitate the

24

mediation efforts, they agree to suspend formal discovery, presumably to preserve resources. Id.

25

A district court has the inherent power to stay its proceedings. This power to stay is

26

“incidental to the power inherent in every court to control the disposition of the causes on its docket

27

with economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants.” Landis v. North American

28

Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936); see also Gold v. Johns–Manville Sales Corp., 723 F.2d 1068, 1077

1

(3d Cir.1983) (holding that the power to stay proceedings comes from the power of every court to

2

manage the cases on its docket and to ensure a fair and efficient adjudication of the matter at hand).

3

This is best accomplished by the “exercise of judgment, which must weigh competing interests and

4

maintain an even balance.” Landis, 299 U.S. at 254–55. In determining whether a stay is warranted,

5

courts consider the potential prejudice to the non-moving party; the hardship or inequity to the

6

moving party if the action is not stayed; and the judicial resources that would be saved by

7

simplifying the case or avoiding duplicative litigation if the case before the court is stayed. CMAX,

8

Inc. v. Hall, 300 F.2d 265, 268 (9th Cir.1962).

9

The Court finds the parties’ resources as well as the Court’s resources would be preserved if

10

the matter was stay pending the mediation. Moreover, the Court is unaware of any hardship or

11

inequity that would result thereby. Consequently, the Court will GRANT the stipulation. (Doc. 55)

12

ORDER

13

1.

The stipulation of the parties to stay this matter (Doc. 55) is GRANTED;

14

2.

No later than April 22, 2016, counsel SHALL file a joint status report setting forth

15

the outcome of the mediation and detailing whether the Court should lift the stay.

16
17
18

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

November 5, 2015

/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
STIPULATION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Case No. 1:14-cv-01790---JLT