Rangi, et al. v. ExamSoft Worldwide, Inc.

Filing 17

ORDER granting 8 Motion to Stay signed by Senior Judge William B. Shubb on 11/6/14: Proceedings in this action shall be, and the same hereby are, STAYED until February 13, 2015. If this action is not finally resolved at the conclusion of this stay, a Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Conference shall be held on March 2, 2015, at 2:00 p.m. in Courtroom 5. (Kaminski, H)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
----oo0oo----

11
12
13
14

RAVINDER RANGI and MELISSA C.
MACIAS, individually and on
behalf of all others
similarly situated,

CIV. NO. 2:14-01919 WBS AC
ORDER RE: JOINT MOTION TO STAY
PROCEEDINGS

Plaintiffs,

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

v.
EXAMSOFT WORLDWIDE, INC.,
Defendant.
----oo0oo---Plaintiffs Ravinder Rangi and Melissa Macias brought
this putative class action lawsuit against defendant Examsoft
Worldwide, Inc., in which they assert various causes of action
including breach of contract and negligence in connection with
the alleged failure of defendant’s testing software.

On October

15, 2014, the parties filed a joint motion to stay proceedings in
light of an agreement between them and other plaintiffs in
various related cases around the country to engage in global

28
1

1

mediation.

2

request a stay of proceedings until February 13, 2015.

3

(Mot. to Stay at 3 (Docket No. 8).)

The parties
(Id.)

“The power to stay proceedings is incidental to the

4

power inherent in every court to control the disposition of the

5

causes on its docket with economy of time and effort for itself,

6

for counsel, and for litigants.”

7

248, 254-55 (1936).

8

proceedings, courts must “weigh competing interest,” id. at 255,

9

including factors such as: “(1) potential prejudice to the non-

10

moving party; (2) hardship and inequity to the moving party; and

11

(3) the judicial resources that would be saved by avoiding

12

duplicative litigation.”

13

Inc., Civ. No. 2:14-00677, 2014 WL 1767701, at *1 (E.D. Cal. May

14

2, 2014) (Mueller, J.).

15

Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S.

When considering a motion to stay

JBR, Inc. v. Keurig Green Mountain,

Courts often grant motions to stay proceedings under

16

similar circumstances to those presented here.

17

ArrivalStar, S.A. v. Blue Sky Network, LLC, Civ. No. 11-4479 SBA,

18

2012 WL 588806, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 22, 2012) (“[S]taying

19

discovery pending mediation will conserve the resources of the

20

parties and will not impose an inequity on any party.”); Perry v.

21

Nat’l City Mortgage, Inc., Civ. No. 05-891 DRH, 2007 WL 2122417,

22

at *1 (S.D. Ill. July 20, 2007) (granting a joint motion to stay

23

“in order to encourage a global resolution”).

24

See, e.g.,

Likewise, the relevant interests weigh in favor of

25

staying proceedings in this case.

First, the parties jointly

26

seek a stay of proceedings, eliminating the risk of prejudice to

27

the non-moving party.

28

Civ. No. 13-02556 RM KLM, 2014 WL 37236, at *1 (D. Colo. Jan. 6,

See Deherra v. Decker Truck Line, Inc.,

2

1

2014) (“[S]taying discovery would not prejudice Plaintiffs as

2

they jointly seek this stay.”).

3

proceedings may impose unnecessary litigation expense upon the

4

parties and detract from mediation efforts, both in this case and

5

the related cases proceeding in other district courts.

6

Stay at 3-4.)

7

expenditure of judicial resources on pretrial matters that may

8

prove moot should the parties reach resolution through mediation.

9

See Canal Properties LLC v. Alliant Tax Credit V, Inc., Civ. No.

Second, failure to stay

(Mot. to

Third, staying proceedings would prevent

10

C04-03201 SI, 2005 WL 1562807, at *3 (N.D. Cal. June 29, 2005)

11

(holding that “it would be a poor use of judicial resources to

12

proceed” when an extrinsic proceeding could have a preclusive

13

effect on the case).

14

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that:

15

(1) the parties’ joint motion to stay proceedings be, and

16
17
18
19

the same hereby is, GRANTED;
(2) proceedings in this action shall be, and the same hereby
are, STAYED until February 13, 2015;
(3) the parties shall file a joint status report pursuant to

20

Local Rule 240 with this court no later than February 13, 2015,

21

including a report on the status of their mediation efforts;

22

(4) if this action is not finally resolved at the conclusion

23

of this stay, a Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Conference pursuant

24

to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16 and Local Rule 240 shall be

25

held on March 2, 2015, at 2:00 p.m. in Courtroom 5.

26

Dated:

November 6, 2014

27
28
3