Den Beste et al

Filing 15

ORDER denying 13 Motion to Stay. Signed by Hon. Phyllis J. Hamilton on 1/2/2013. (hlkS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/2/2013)

Download PDF
1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 6 7 In re PAUL AND MELODY DEN BESTE, No. C 12-4522 PJH Bankr. Case No. 10-13558 8 ORDER DENYING MOTION TO STAY 9 Debtors. ______________________________________/ 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 12 Plaintiff/Appellant Paul Den Beste has filed a request to stay the appeal for 45 days 13 pending his inspection of the record with respect to the bankruptcy record on appeal, filed 14 as Docket No. 3. Defendant/Appellee Edith Mazzaferri opposes the motion to stay and 15 objects to the motion to stay on the ground that Den Beste failed to serve a copy of the 16 correspondence on her. The court notes, however, that Den Beste executed a proof of 17 service by mail and overrules Mazzaferri’s objection. 18 Courts have the power to stay ongoing proceedings “incidental to the power inherent 19 in every court to control the disposition of the causes on its docket with economy of time 20 and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants.” Landis v. North American Co., 299 U.S. 21 248, 254 (1936). In determining whether a stay is appropriate, the court must weigh 22 various competing interests, including the possible damage which may result from granting 23 the stay, the hardship to the parties if the suit is allowed to proceed, and the “‘orderly 24 course of justice measured in terms of the simplifying or complicating of issues, proof, and 25 questions of law which could be expected to result from a stay.’” Lockyer v. Mirant Corp., 26 398 F.3d 1098, 1110 (9th Cir. 2005) (quoting Landis, 299 U.S. at 268). 27 28 Here, Den Beste fails to demonstrate any hardship from allowing the appeal to proceed. Den Beste refers to records that he delivered to the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel 1 which he believes are not docketed, but he concedes that those “appeals are unrelated to 2 this appeal at this time,” and does not demonstrate that those unrelated proceedings 3 warrant a stay in this matter. Further, Den Beste seeks a stay to give him time “to find out 4 why the appellate record is not viewable on blanked out Docket # 3 of this Court’s docket.” 5 That docket entry notes that the document is too voluminous to be electronically filed, and 6 the record has been manually filed pursuant to Civil Local Rule 5-1(f). The manual filing of 7 the bankruptcy court record does not warrant a stay in this proceeding. Den Beste’s 8 motion to stay is therefore DENIED. 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 Dated: January 2, 2013 12 ______________________________ PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON United States District Judge 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?