Golden v. Home Depot U.S.A, Inc.

Filing 48

ORDER GRANTING 47 the Parties' Joint Motion to Stay, signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 12/2/2019. CASE STAYED. (Hall, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19

CLYDE GOLDEN, individually and on behalf )
of all others similarly situated,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
HOME DEPOT U.S.A., INC.,
)
)
Defendants.
)

Case No.: 1:18-cv-0033 - LJO - JLT
ORDER GRANTING THE PARTIES’ JOINT
MOTION TO STAY
(Doc. 47)

The parties seek a stay of the action, pending the resolution of Defendant’s motion for summary
judgment, which is currently under submission. (Doc. 47)
The Supreme Court explained the “power to stay proceedings is incidental to the power inherent

20

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

21

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

22

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

23

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

24

these competing interests are: (1) the possible damage which may result from the granting of a stay; (2)

25

the hardship or inequity which a party may suffer in being required to go forward; and (3) the orderly

26

course of justice measured in terms of simplifying or complicating of issues, proof, and questions of

27

law which could be expected to result from a stay. Id. (citing Landis, 299 U.S. at 254-55)).

28

In general, the party seeking a stay “bears the burden of establishing its need.” Clinton v. Jones,
1

1

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

2

even a fair possibility that the stay . . . will work damage to some one else,” the party seeking the stay

3

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

4

to grant or deny a stay is committed to the discretion of the Court. Dependable Highway Express, Inc.

5

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

6

The parties request a stay pending resolution of the motion for summary judgment, reporting

7

“the Court’s ruling on the motion for summary judgment will have an effect on the motion for class

8

certification.” (Doc. 47 at 2) The parties believe that “it would be difficult and inefficient for Plaintiffs

9

to file their motion for class before the Court’s ruling on the motion for summary judgment.” (Id.)

10

Because the motion for class certification is due on December 17, 2019, and the motion for summary

11

judgment is currently under submission, the parties “request that the Court stay pending deadlines until

12

after the Court’s ruling on the motion for summary judgment.” (Id.)

13

Significantly, it does not appear that the parties would suffer any prejudice from a stay in the

14

proceedings, whereas preparation of the motion for class certification would be difficult without the

15

Court’s rulings related to the alleged violations of consumer protection laws. Further, the Court’s

16

ruling may clarify the issues and liability questions related to the class, and the orderly course of justice

17

will be promoted by a stay, Thus, the facts set forth by the Ninth Circuit weigh in favor of a stay

18

pending resolution of the dispositive motion. Based upon the foregoing, the Court ORDERS:

19

1.

The joint motion to stay (Doc. 47) is GRANTED;

20

2.

The matter is STAYED; and

21

3.

The parties SHALL file a joint scheduling report related to the motion for class
certification within 10 days of a decision on Defendant’s motion for summary judgment.

22
23
24
25
26

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

December 2, 2019

/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

27
28
2