Garden City, Inc. et al v. City of San Jose et al

Filing 87

ORDER DENYING STAY by Judge Paul S. Grewal denying 71 (psglc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/2/2014)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

SAN JOSE DIVISION

11
12

GARDEN CITY, INC.,
Plaintiff,

13
v.

14
15

CITY OF SAN JOSE, et. al.,
Defendants.

16
17
18

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 5:13-cv-00577-PSG
ORDER DENYING STAY
(Re: Docket No. 71)

Before the court is Plaintiff Garden City’s request that the court stay the proceedings until
May 25, 2014. 1 Defendants the City of San Jose, the San Jose Police Department and Richard

19
Teng oppose. The court finds this motion suitable for disposition on the papers pursuant to the
20
21
22

local rules. 2 Because the parties are well-versed in this dispute with parallel litigation on several
fronts, the court turns immediately to the motion before it. 3

23
24
25

1

26

2

27

See Civil L.R. 7-1(b) (“In the Judge’s discretion, or upon request by counsel and with the Judge’s
approval, a motion may be determined without oral argument or by telephone conference call.”).
3

28

See Docket No. 71.

Unfamiliar readers are directed to the court’s prior orders addressing the parties’ Rule 12 and 56
motions. See Docket Nos. 33 and 66.
1
Case No. 5:13-cv-00577-PSG
ORDER DENYING STAY

I. LEGAL STANDARDS

1
2

Whether to issue a stay is “an exercise of judicial discretion” to be “guided by sound legal

3

principles.” 4 “Petitioners do not have an absolute right to a stay ‘even if irreparable injury might

4

otherwise result;’ instead, the propriety of granting a stay depends on the circumstances of each

5

case.” 5 In exercising its discretion, the court must balance “the competing interests which will be

6

affected by the granting or refusal to grant a stay.” 6 “Among those competing interests are the

7
8
9

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

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

terms of the simplifying or complicating of issues, proof, and questions of law which could be

11

expected to result from a stay.” 7 The Ninth Circuit has indicated that “while it is the prerogative of

12

the district court to manage its workload, case management standing alone is not necessarily a

13

sufficient ground to stay proceedings.” 8 “The proponent of a stay bears the burden of establishing

14

its need.” 9

15
II. DISCUSSION

16
17

Garden City justifies its request to stay the case because recent legislative directives by the

18

San Jose City Council may “largely” resolve this dispute. 10 Specifically, on January 28, 2014, the

19
4

20

Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 434 (2009) (citation omitted).

5

21
22
23

Belinda K. v. Cnty. of Alameda, Case No. 5:10-cv-05797-LHK, 2012 WL 273720, at *1
(N.D. Cal. Jan. 30, 2012) (quoting Nken, 556 U.S. at 427); see also Virginian Ry. Co. v.
United States, 272 U.S. 658, 672-673 (1926) (“A stay is not a matter of right, even if irreparable
injury might otherwise result to the appellant. It is an exercise of judicial discretion. The propriety
of its issue is dependent upon the circumstances of the particular case.”) (citation omitted).
6

24

Lockyer v. Mirant Corp., 398 F.3d 1098, 1110 (9th Cir.2005) (quoting CMAX Inc. v. Hall,
300 F.2d 265, 268 (9th Cir. 1962)).

25

7

Id. (quoting CMAX, 300 F.2d at 268).

26

8

Dependable Highway Exp., Inc. v. Navigators Ins. Co., 498 F.3d 1059, 1066 (9th Cir.2007).

27

9

Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 708 (1997).

28

10

Docket No. 71 at 1.
2

Case No. 5:13-cv-00577-PSG
ORDER DENYING STAY