Horn v. Experis US Inc., a Manpower Brand Company

Filing 27

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Deborah Barnes on 12/21/18 DENYING 26 Motion to Stay; CONTINUING the 24 Motion for summary judgment Hearing to 2/1/2019 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 27 (DB) before Magistrate Judge Deborah Barnes; and DIRECTING plaintiff to file a statement of opposition or non-opposition to 24 Motion for Summary Judgment. (Coll, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ELLA W. HORN,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14
15

No. 2:17-cv-0814 JAM DB PS

v.

ORDER

EXPERIS US INC., A MANPOWER
BRAND COMPANY,

16

Defendant.

17
Plaintiff Ella Horn is proceeding in this action pro se. This matter was, therefore, referred

18
19

to the undersigned in accordance with Local Rule 302(c)(21) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). On

20

November 30, 2018, defendant filed a motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 24.) That

21

motion is noticed hearing before the undersigned on January 11, 2019. (ECF No. 25.)
On December 10, 2018, plaintiff filed an emergency motion to stay these proceedings.

22
23

(ECF No. 26.) Therein, plaintiff argues that this action should be stayed “pending resolution of a

24

related case pending appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit” involving

25

a ruling out of the Northern District of California. (Id. at 1.) According to plaintiff, defendant’s

26

pending motion for summary judgment “is based on and supported by the Northern District

27

Court’s ruling” in that action. (Id.)

28

////
1

“A stay is not a matter of right . . . . It is instead ‘an exercise of judicial discretion’ . . .

1
2

[that] ‘is dependent upon the circumstances of the particular case.’” Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S.

3

418, 433-344 (2009) (quoting Virginian Ry. Co. v. US, 272 U.S. 658, 672-73 (1926)). The

4

district court has broad discretion to stay proceedings as an incident to its power to control its

5

own docket.” Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 707 (1997) (citing Landis v. North American Co.,

6

299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936)). “The proponent of the stay bears the burden of establishing its need.”

7

Id. at 706. When considering a motion to stay, the district court should consider:

8

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.

9
10
11

CMAX, Inc. v. Hall, 300 F.2d 265, 268 (9th Cir. 1962) (citing Landis, 299 U.S. at 254-55).

12

Here, defendant’s motion for summary judgment is not based on the ruling from the

13

Northern District. And even if it were, that ruling would not be binding on this court. See

14

ATSI Communications, Inc. v. Shaar Fund, Ltd, 547 F.3d 109, 112 (2nd Cir. 2008) (“District

15

court decisions . . . create no rule of law binding on other courts”). Thus, plaintiff would not

16

suffer hardship or inequity by being required to go forward in this action. And it cannot be said

17

that granting a stay would result in the simplification of any issue, proof, or question of law in

18

this action. Instead, granting a stay would only serve to delay this action.
Plaintiff’s request for a stay will, therefore, be denied. However, the undersigned will

19
20

continue the hearing of defendant’s motion for summary judgment to allow plaintiff additional

21

time to prepare an opposition or statement of non-opposition to defendant’s motion for summary

22

judgment.

23

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

24

1. Plaintiff’s December 10, 2018 emergency motion to stay (ECF No. 26) is denied;

25

2. The January 11, 2018 hearing of defendant’s motion for summary judgment (ECF No.

26

24) is continued to Friday, February 1, 2019, at 10:00 a.m., at the United States District Court,

27

501 I Street, Sacramento, California, in Courtroom No. 27, before the undersigned;

28

////
2

1
2
3

3. On or before January 18, 2019, plaintiff shall file a statement of opposition or nonopposition to defendant’s motion for summary judgment; and
4. Plaintiff is cautioned that the failure to timely comply with this order may result in the

4

recommendation that this case be dismissed.

5

Dated: December 21, 2018

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23

DLB:6
DB\orders\orders.pro se\horn0814.stay.ord

24
25
26
27
28
3