Graham et al v. Overland Solutions, Inc. et al

Filing 88

ORDER Granting 87 Joint Motion to Stay Litigation Deadlines Pending Court Approval of Settlement. Signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara Lynn Major on 11/15/2011. (knb)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 ) ) ) ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) OVERLAND SOLUTIONS INC. and DOES 1 ) ) through 100, inclusive, ) ) Defendants. ) JOYCE GRAHAM and JOYCE LAMPKIN on behalf of themselves and those similarly situated, Case No. 10cv672-BEN (BLM) ORDER GRANTING JOINT MOTION TO STAY LITIGATION DEADLINES PENDING COURT APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT [ECF No. 87] 17 18 On November 14, 2011, the parties filed a joint motion to stay litigation deadlines 19 pending court approval of class settlement. ECF No. 87. In support, the parties state that 20 their settlement discussions have been successful and that the parties would like for the Court 21 to stay the current litigation deadlines “to avoid the unnecessary expense of further discovery 22 and duplicate notices, as well as for purposes of judicial economy and to avoid confusion 23 among class members by issuing a single notice of the action and the settlement following 24 preliminary approval.” Id. at 3. 25 "[T]he power to stay proceedings is incidental to the power inherent in every court to 26 control the disposition of the causes on its docket with economy of time and effort for itself, 27 for counsel, and for litigants." Murray v. City of Carlsbad, 2010 WL 4822744, *1 (S.D.Cal. 28 Nov. 22, 2010) (quoting Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254, 57 (1936)). "Where it is 10cv672-BEN (BLM) 1 proposed that a pending proceeding be stayed, the competing interests which will be affected 2 by the granting or refusal to grant a stay must be weighed. Among these competing interests 3 are the possible damage which may result from the granting of a stay, the hardship or 4 inequity which a party may suffer in being required to go forward, and the orderly course of 5 justice measured in terms of the simplifying or complicating of issues, proof, and questions of 6 law which could be expected to result from a stay." Id. (quoting CMAX, Inc. v. Hall, 300 F.2d 7 265, 268 (9th Cir. 1962) (citing Landis, 299 U.S. at 254-55). The party moving for a stay 8 "must make out a clear case of hardship or inequity in being required to go forward, if there is 9 even a fair possibility that the stay for which he prays will work damage to some one else." 10 Landis, 299 U.S. at 255. 11 Here, the parties have filed a joint motion to stay the litigation. ECF No. 87. The lack 12 of opposition from either party to staying the action supports a finding by this Court in favor 13 of granting the stay. Neither party will be damaged if the stay is granted, however, both will 14 likely suffer if they are required to go forward while finalizing the settlement and trying to 15 obtain Court approval of the settlement. 16 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: 17 1. The parties joint motion to stay the proceedings is GRANTED; 18 2. The current deadlines established in the Court’s September 27, 2011 Order [ECF 19 No. 84] are stayed until the final resolution of the soon-to-be-filed motion for 20 preliminary approval of the settlement and later motion for final approval of the 21 settlement. 22 3. In the event that the settlement is not approved, the parties must contact the 23 Court within 10 days of the District Court’s denial to reset the litigation 24 deadlines. IT IS SO ORDERED. 25 DATED: November 15, 2011 26 27 BARBARA L. MAJOR United States Magistrate Judge 28 2 10cv672-BEN (BLM)

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?