Raymond v. Oakley

Filing 28

ORDER signed by Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr., on 5/29/13 ORDERING that each captioned case listed in this order is STAYED pending decision in Libertarian Party. A Status Conference is SET for 2/3/2014 at 09:00 AM in Courtroom 10 (GEB) before Judge G arland E. Burrell, Jr.. A joint status report shall be filed 14 days prior to the status conference. If a party learns that a decision has been reached in Libertarian Party before its status report is due, that party shall notify the Court in a filing as soon as practicable. Plaintiff's Motions forJudgments on the Pleadings, filed in each of the related cases, are deemed withdrawn. (Kastilahn, A)

1
2
3
4

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

Robert Raymond,
Plaintiff,

8
9
10
11
12
13
14

v.
Barbara Howard, Sheldon D.
Johnson, Jim McCauley, Kammi
Foote, Lee Lundigran, Ken Baird,
Sheryl Thur, Austin Erdman,
Kathy Darling Allen, Beverly
Ross, Freddie Oakley, and
Kathleen Williams,
Defendants.

15
16
17

________________________________

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

2:12-cv-02215-GEB-EFB and
related cases:
2:12-cv-02217-GEB-EFB
2:12-cv-02219-GEB-EFB
1:12-cv-01407-GEB-EFB
1:12-cv-01408-GEB-EFB
1:12-cv-01412-GEB-EFB
2:12-cv-02220-GEB-EFB
2:12-cv-02221-GEB-EFB
2:12-cv-02222-GEB-EFB
2:12-cv-02223-GEB-EFB
2:12-cv-02225-GEB-EFB
2:12-cv-02259-GEB-EFB
ORDER STAYING RELATED CASES,
SCHEDULING STATUS (PRETRIAL
SCHEDULING) CONFERENCE, AND
DEEMING PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS
FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS
WITHDRAWN

18

Since Libertarian Party of Los Angeles Cnty. v. Bowen, Case

19

No. 2:10-cv-02488-PSG-OP (“Libertarian Party”), is a pending lawsuit in

20

the United States District Court for the Central District of California

21

that also challenges the constitutionality of residency requirements for

22

petition circulators under the California Election Code, and the state

23

officials that a number of Defendants in the above-captioned related

24

cases (“related cases”) sought to have joined as defendants are named as

25

defendants in Libertarian Party, the Court sua sponte issued an order

26

directing the parties to address whether the related cases should be

27

stayed pending a decision in Libertarian Party. (Order 7:13-19, May 6,

28

2013, ECF No. 26.)

1

1

Plaintiff and Defendants Howard, Johnson, McCauley, Foote,

2

Lundigran,

3

responses to the May 6, 2013 OSC. Each Defendant filed essentially the

4

same response, stating, inter alia, that he or she “does not oppose the

5

exercise of the Court’s discretion to stay the [related] case[s] pending

6

a decision in Libertarian Party.” See, e.g., Def. Howard’s Resp. to OSC

7

1:5-6, ECF No. 29.) Defendants indicate: “[t]he Libertarian Party

8

case . . . is certain to control the outcome of the proceedings in th[e

9

related] case[s] as it challenges the same questions of law regarding

10

the constitutionality of residency requirements for circulators.” Id. at

11

1:7-10. Defendants further state: “[i]n light of the foregoing and in

12

order to prevent redundant and duplicative litigation, as well as to

13

promote the interests of judicial economy, [they] ha[ve] no objection to

14

the Court’s stay of th[e related] action[s].” Id. at 2:6-8.

15

Thur,

Erdman,

Allen,

Oakley,

and

Williams

each

filed

Plaintiff also “does not oppose the exercise of the Court’s

16

discretion

17

Libertarian Party[, . . .] fully believ[ing] that the Libertarian Party

18

case will affect the outcome of the proceedings in th[ese] case[s] as it

19

challenges the same questions of law regarding the constitutionality of

20

residency requirements for potential petition circulators.” (Pl.’s Resp.

21

to OSC 2:2-9, ECF No. 31.)

to

stay

the

[related]

case[s]

pending

a

decision

in

22

“The District Court has broad discretion to stay proceedings

23

as an incident to its power to control its own docket.” Clinton v.

24

Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 706-07 (1997) (citing Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299

25

U.S. 248, 254 (1936)).

26
27
28

A trial court may, with propriety, find it is
efficient for its own docket and the fairest course
for the parties to enter a stay of an action before
it, pending resolution of independent proceedings
which bear upon the case. This rule applies whether
the
separate
proceedings
are
judicial,
2

1

administrative, or arbitral in character, and does
not require that the issues in such proceedings are
necessarily controlling of the action before the
court.

2
3
4

Leyva v. Certified Grocers of Cal., Ltd., 593 F.2d 857, 863-64 (9th Cir.

5

1979).

6
7

The Ninth Circuit has “set out the following framework” in
determining whether to impose a Landis stay:

8

13

Where it is proposed that a pending proceeding be
stayed, the competing interests which will be
affected by the granting or refusal to grant a stay
must be weighed. Among those competing interests
are the possible damage which may result from the
granting of a stay, the hardship or inequity which
a party may suffer in being required to go forward,
and the orderly course of justice measured in terms
of the simplifying or complicating of issues,
proof, and questions of law which could be expected
to result from a stay.

14

Lockyer v. Mirant Corp., 398 F.3d 1098, 1110 (9th Cir. 2005). Further,

15

“‘a stay should not be granted unless it appears likely that the other

16

proceedings will be concluded within a reasonable time.’ Generally,

17

stays should not be indefinite in nature.” Dependable Highway Express,

18

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

19

(quoting Leyva, 593 F.2d at 864).

9
10
11
12

20

The referenced factors weigh in favor of issuing a stay of

21

each of

22

“Nothing in the record indicates that [any] party will be prejudiced by

23

a . . . stay.” City of Lindsay v. Sociedad Quimica Y Minera De Chile,

24

No. 1:11-cv-00046-LJO-SMS, 2012 WL 2065035, at *3 (E.D. Cal. June 7,

25

2012). In fact, all but two parties in the related cases filed responses

26

to the OSC stating that they do not oppose a stay.1 Further, issuing a

the

related cases

pending

decision in

Libertarian Party.

27
28
1

Defendants Baird and Ross did not file responses to the OSC.
3

1

stay furthers the interests of judicial economy and efficiency since

2

each party who filed a response to the OSC agrees that Libertarian Party

3

will affect the outcome of the related cases. Further, there is no

4

evidence that litigation in Libertarian Party “will be protracted.”2

5

Lindell v. Synthes, USA, No. 1:11-cv-2053 LJO-BAM, 2012 WL 1657197, at

6

*3 (E.D. Cal. May 10, 2012).

7

For the stated reasons, each above-captioned case is stayed

8

pending decision in Libertarian Party. A status conference is scheduled

9

in each case commencing at 9:00 a.m. on February 3, 2014. A joint status

10

report shall be filed fourteen (14) days prior to the status conference,

11

in which the parties shall explain the status of Libertarian Party;

12

however, if decision is reached in Libertarian Party by the status

13

report due date, information concerning how the case should be scheduled

14

shall be included in the joint status report. If a party learns that a

15

decision has been reached in Libertarian Party before its status report

16

is due, that party shall notify the Court in a filing as soon as

17

practicable.

18

Further,

in

light

of

the

stay,

Plaintiff’s

Motions

for

19

Judgments on the Pleadings, filed in each of the related cases, are

20

deemed withdrawn.

21

Dated:

May 29, 2013

22
23

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.
Senior United States District Judge

24
25
26
27
28

2

The Ninth Circuit recently issued an opinion in Libertarian
Party, in which the panel reversed the district court’s dismissal of the
Complaint for lack of standing and remanded the matter “for proceedings
on the merits.” See Libertarian Party of L.A. Cnty. v. Bowen, 709 F.3d
867, 869-70 (9th Cir. 2013).
4