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)

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)