Mann et al v. City of Sacramento et al

Filing 50

ORDER signed by Senior Judge William B. Shubb on 1/18/18, GRANTING defendants' 34 Motion to stay pending appeal. Upon resolution of the pending appeal, counsel shall take the necessary steps to inform the Clerk and arrange to have this matter set for further status conference. (Kastilahn, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

----oo0oo----

11
12
13

ROBERT MANN SR., VERN MURPHYMANN, DEBORAH MANN, ZACHARY
MANN, and WILLIAM MANN,

14
15
16
17

Plaintiffs,

CIV. NO. 2:17-1201 WBS DB

ORDER RE: MOTION TO STAY

v.
CITY OF SACRAMENTO,
SACRAMENTO POLICE DEPARTMENT,
SAMUEL D. SOMERS JR., JOHN C.
TENNIS, and RANDY R. LOZOYA,

18
19

Defendants.

20
----oo0oo----

21

Presently before the court is defendants City of

22
23

Sacramento, Sacramento Police Department, and Samuel D. Somers’

24

Motion to stay the proceeding pending interlocutory appeal.1

25

(Mot. to Stay (Docket No. 34).)

Defendant’s Tennis and Lozoya

26
27
28

1

Defendants John Tennis and Randy Lozoya filed a notice
of non-opposition to the Motion to stay the proceedings pending
appeal. (Docket No. 43.)
1

1

appealed the court’s denial of their Motion to dismiss which

2

requested qualified immunity from suit under § 1983.

3

Interlocutory Appeal (Docket No. 28).)

4

(Notice of

A federal court can stay a proceeding pending the

5

outcome of an interlocutory appeal.

6

418, 421 (2009).

7

the power inherent in every court to control the disposition of

8

the cases on its docket with economy of time and effort for

9

itself, for counsel, and for litigants.”

See Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S.

The power to stay proceedings “is incidental to

Landis v. N. Am. Co.,

10

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

11

Circuit may rule, “forcing a party to conduct ‘substantial,

12

unrecoverable, and wasteful’ discovery and pretrial motions on

13

matters that could be mooted by a pending appeal may amount to

14

hardship or inequity sufficient to justify a stay.”

15

Leprino Foods Co., Civ. No. 1:13-2059 AWI BAM, 2017 WL 1355104,

16

at *4 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 20, 2017) (Ishii, J.) (citing Pena v.

17

Taylor Farms Pac., Inc., Civ. No. 2:13-1282 KJM AC, 2015 WL

18

5103157, at *4 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 31, 2015) (Mueller, J.)).

19
20

While it is unclear how the Ninth

Finder v.

Accordingly, the court concludes that granting a stay
is appropriate.

21

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that defendants’ Motion to stay

22

pending appeal (Docket No. 34) be, and the same hereby is,

23

GRANTED.

24

take the necessary steps to inform the Clerk and arrange to have

25

this matter set for further status conference.

26

Dated:

Upon resolution of the pending appeal, counsel shall

January 18, 2018

27
28
2