Backus v. Biscomerica Corporation

Filing 45

ORDER STAYING CASE Re Docket No. 34 : Joint Status Report due by 9/20/2017. Signed by Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. on 6/22/2017. (ndrS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/22/2017)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 TROY BACKUS, Plaintiff, 8 9 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 v. Case No. 16-cv-03916-HSG ORDER STAYING CASE Re: Dkt. No. 34 BISCOMERICA CORPORATION, Defendant. Pending before the Court is Plaintiff Troy Backus’ (“Plaintiff”) administrative motion to 13 stay this action. Dkt. No. 34. Defendant Biscomerica Corporation (“Defendant”) opposes the 14 motion. Dkt. No. 36. Plaintiff’s motion is based on the fact that two other cases that are fully 15 briefed and pending before the Ninth Circuit involve substantially similar issues to those raised in 16 this case. See Dkt. No. 34. Those cases are Hawkins v. The Kroger Company, Case No. 16-55532 17 (9th Cir.) and Hawkins v. AdvancePierre Foods, Inc., Case No. 16-56697 (9th Cir.). Having 18 reviewed the parties’ papers and the issues raised in the cases on appeal, the Court finds that 19 staying the above-captioned case pending resolution of the Hawkins actions could significantly 20 narrow the issues in this case, conserve judicial resources, and avoid unnecessary legal expense. 21 The Court therefore STAYS this action in its entirety pending a decision in those actions by the 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Ninth Circuit. In the interim, if either side seeks relief from the stay for any purpose, they should do so via a formal motion. The parties are directed to submit a joint status report on the progress of the aforementioned appeals by September 20, 2017. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: 6/22/2017 ______________________________________ HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR. United States District Judge

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?