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