Domingo v. Management & Training Corporation et al
Filing
18
ORDER DENYING 15 Stipulation to Stay the Action Without Prejudice, signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 6/18/2015. (Hall, S)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
LUIS C. DOMINGO,
12
Plaintiff,
13
14
Case No.: 1:15-cv-00284 AWI JLT
ORDER DENYING STIPULATION TO STAY
THE ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE
v.
MANAGEMENT & TRAINING
CORPORATION,
(Doc. 15)
15
Defendants.
16
17
In Edison v. United States of America, et al., Case No. 1:12-cv-02026-AWI-JLT and
18
Nuwintore v. United States of America, et al., Case No. 1:13-cv- 00967-AWI-JLT, both plaintiffs
19
have appealed the Court’s determination that the United States of America is not liable. The
20
remaining portion of these cases, against Management & Training Corporation, has been stayed
21
pending the outcome of the appeal. As Mr. Domingo does, the Edison and Nuwintore plaintiffs
22
claim they contracted Valley Fever while housed at Taft Correctional Institution which is a privately
23
run, though government owned, federal prison.
24
Now before the Court is the stipulation of the parties seeking to stay this action while the
25
appeals in Edison and Nuwintore are decided. (Doc. 15)
26
I.
The stipulation fails to demonstrate that a stay is necessary
27
A district court has the inherent power to stay its proceedings. This power to stay is
28
“incidental to the power inherent in every court to control the disposition of the causes on its docket
1
1
with economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants.” Landis v. North American
2
Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936); see also Gold v. Johns–Manville Sales Corp., 723 F.2d 1068, 1077
3
(3d Cir.1983) (holding that the power to stay proceedings comes from the power of every court to
4
manage the cases on its docket and to ensure a fair and efficient adjudication of the matter at hand).
5
This is best accomplished by the “exercise of judgment, which must weigh competing interests and
6
maintain an even balance.” Landis, 299 U.S. at 254–55. In determining whether a stay is warranted,
7
courts consider the potential prejudice to the non-moving party; the hardship or inequity to the
8
moving party if the action is not stayed; and the judicial resources that would be saved by
9
simplifying the case or avoiding duplicative litigation if the case before the court is stayed. CMAX,
10
Inc. v. Hall, 300 F.2d 265, 268 (9th Cir.1962).
11
Here, the Court finds no inequity if the matter is not stayed. Mr. Domingo’s complaint does
12
not name the United States of America. (Doc. 1) This is likely due to the fact that Plaintiff delayed
13
until February 2015 to file his FTCA claim—the very day this action was filed—and the claim has
14
not yet been decided. (Doc. 17 at 2) In any event, at this time, there is no reason to believe that the
15
outcome of the Edison and/or Nuwintore appeals will have or can have any impact on the outcome
16
of this case.
17
resources would be preserved if the matter was stayed. Therefore, the Court will DENY the
18
stipulation (Doc. 15) WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
Consequently, the Court cannot find that the case would be simplified or that judicial
19
20
21
22
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
June 18, 2015
/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
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?