Mahan v. Perez et al

Filing 60

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S APPLICATION FOR STAY re 53 Application for Stay of Execution filed by Juan Perez. Initial Case Management Conference set for 10/5/2016 at 2:00 PM in Courtroom 9, 19th Floor, San Francisco. Signed by Judge Jon S. Tigar on June 30, 2016. (wsn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/30/2016)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

CHAUNCEY M. MAHAN,

Case No. 16-cv-02024-JST

Plaintiff,
8
v.

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S
APPLICATION FOR STAY

9
10

JUAN PEREZ, et al.,

Re: ECF No. 53

Defendants.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14

Before the Court is Defendant Juan Perez’s Application for a Stay of All Dates. ECF No.
53. The application is opposed by Plaintiff. The Court will grant the application.
“[T]he power to stay proceedings is incidental to the power inherent in every court to

15

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

16

counsel, and for litigants.” Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936). Whether to stay

17

proceedings is entrusted to the discretion of the district court. See id. at 254–55. A district court

18

must weigh various competing interests, including the possible damage which may result from

19

granting a stay, the hardship a party may suffer if the case is allowed to go forward, and “the

20

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

21

questions of law which could be expected to result from a stay.” Lockyer v. Mirant Corp., 398

22

F.3d 1098, 1110 (9th Cir. 2005).

23

Plaintiff, who is appearing pro se, does not identify particular causes of action, but appears

24

to allege that multiple defendants have conspired to falsely arrest him, illegally detain him, and

25

seize his property. See ECF No. 3. Perez contends that the property at issue in this case was also

26

the subject of claims brought in the Southern District of New York (“S.D.N.Y.”), and that the

27

court in S.D.N.Y. is imminently holding a hearing to determine the ownership and disposition of

28

the property. ECF No. 53 at 2. As a result, Perez argues that the outcome of the hearing in

1

S.D.N.Y. may effectively moot the issues before this Court as to Perez. Id. at 5. A stay, Perez

2

continues, would remove the need for potentially unnecessary proceedings in this court, and would

3

impose no prejudice since Plaintiff only seeks monetary relief based on events that took place

4

years prior to this action’s commencement. Id. at 5-6.

5

Plaintiff responds by contending that the court in S.D.N.Y. lacks jurisdiction to conduct its

6

hearing, and that his legal claims alleged in this case are distinct from the claims alleged in his

7

S.D.N.Y. case. ECF No. 55 at 1-2. The Court takes no position on whether these claims are

8

accurate. Plaintiff has not denied that the outcome of the S.D.N.Y. hearing may likely resolve

9

some of the issues raised in this case through resolving the question of who owns the property in

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19

question. Nor has Plaintiff identified any prejudice that would result from a stay.
Accordingly, the Court concludes that a stay of proceedings in this case is appropriate. It
therefore orders as follows:
(1) All proceedings in this case are hereby stayed until 30 days after the S.D.N.Y. has
entered final judgment in regards to the issues discussed in its June 29, 2016 hearing.
(2) Within ten days after the S.D.N.Y. has entered final judgment, Defendant Perez shall
notify this Court of the outcome.
(3) Within fifteen days after Perez has filed his notification, the parties shall file, jointly or
separately, a proposed schedule for resuming proceedings in this case.
(4) A Case Management Conference is scheduled for October 5, 2016 at 2:00 p.m. Either

20

party may move the Court for a continuance of this CMC based on the status of the S.D.N.Y

21

proceedings by filing a motion at least seven days before the CMC.

22
23
24
25

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: June 30, 2016
______________________________________
JON S. TIGAR
United States District Judge

26
27
28
2