Bilema et al v. Bostic et al

Filing 129

ORDER re: 94 Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment; 110 Defendants' Unopposed Motion to Stay; 112 Plaintiffs' Motion to File Under Seal; and 121 122 Plaintiffs' Motions for Taxation of Costs. The Court grants Defen dants' unopposed motion and stays the case. Doc. No. 110. The Court orders the parties to file a joint status report within three business days of the remaining administrative appeals reaching finality. In light of the stay and procedural postur e of this case, the Court denies without prejudice Defendants' motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 94) and Plaintiffs' motion to file documents under seal (Doc. No. 112). Once the stay is lifted, Defendants may file a renewed motion for s ummary judgment and Plaintiffs' may renew their motion to file under seal. It is further ordered that the Clerk of Court administratively terminate Plaintiffs' motions for taxation of costs. Doc. Nos. 121, 122. The Court will address all motions for taxation of costs, if necessary, upon resolution of all claims in this action. Accordingly, Plaintiffs may file renewed motions for taxation of costs upon resolution of this action. Signed by Judge Michael M. Anello on 5/14/2019. (rmc)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

RUDY ALARCON, et al.

Case No.: 15cv1606-MMA (RBM)
Plaintiffs,

12
13

v.

14

ORDER RE: DEFENDANTS’
MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT; DEFENDANTS’
UNOPPOSED MOTION TO STAY;
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO FILE
UNDER SEAL; AND PLAINTIFFS’
MOTIONS FOR TAXATION OF
COSTS
[Doc. Nos. 94, 110, 112, 121, 122]

MICHAEL BOSTIC, et al.
Defendants.

15
16
17
18

Currently pending before the Court are Defendants’ motion for summary judgment

19
20

(Doc. No. 94), Defendants’ unopposed1 motion to stay the case (Doc. No. 110),

21

Plaintiffs’ motion to file documents in support of their opposition to Defendants’ motion

22

for summary judgment under seal (Doc. No. 112), and Plaintiffs’ motions for taxation of

23

costs2 (Doc. Nos. 121, 122). The Court, in its discretion, finds the matters suitable for

24
25
26
27
28

Defendants contend Plaintiff Alarcon’s claims should be dismissed for failure to exhaust his judicial
remedies. Doc. No. 110 at 9-11. Plaintiffs oppose the Court dismissing Plaintiff Alarcon’s claims.
Doc. No. 125. “[J]udicial exhaustion . . . is inapplicable in a § 1983 action brought in federal court”
and, therefore, the Court DENIES Defendants’ request to dismiss Plaintiff Alarcon’s claims. Embury v.
King, 191 F. Supp. 2d 1071, 1082 (N.D. Cal. 2001).
2
Plaintiffs’ motions for taxation of costs are not fully briefed. See Docket.
1

1
15cv1606-MMA (RBM)

1

determination on the papers and without oral argument pursuant to Civil Local Rule

2

7.1.d.1. After reviewing the parties’ filings, and for the following reasons, the Court

3

GRANTS Defendants’ unopposed motion to stay the case (Doc. No. 110), DENIES

4

WITHOUT PREJUDICE Defendants’ motion for summary judgment and Plaintiffs’

5

motion to file documents under seal (Doc. Nos. 94, 112), and instructs the Clerk of Court

6

to ADMINISTRATIVELY TERMINATE Plaintiffs’ motions for taxation of costs

7

(Doc. Nos. 121, 122).

8
9

A federal district court has inherent power to stay a lawsuit based on
considerations of economy of time and effort for the court, counsel, and litigants. Landis

10

v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254-55 (1936). If there is a pending proceeding that is

11

independent of but related to the federal lawsuit, then in certain circumstances the federal

12

district court may stay the federal lawsuit while the independent proceeding moves

13

forward. Dependable Highway Express, Inc. v. Navigators Ins. Co., 498 F.3d 1059, 1066

14

(9th Cir. 2007); Leyva v. Certified Grocers of Cal., Ltd., 593 F.2d 857, 863 (9th Cir.

15

1979). The independent proceeding need not be controlling of the federal lawsuit to be

16

considered related. Leyva, 593 F.2d at 863-64. An independent proceeding is related to

17

the federal lawsuit if the proceeding will likely settle and simplify issues in the federal

18

lawsuit. Landis, 299 U.S. at 256. To determine whether to impose a Landis stay, the

19

federal district court should weigh five competing interests: (1) whether there is a fair

20

possibility that a stay will cause damage; (2) whether a party may suffer hardship or

21

inequity if a stay is not imposed; (3) whether a stay will contribute to the orderly course

22

of justice; (4) whether the stay is imposed solely for judicial economy; and (5) whether

23

the stay is for an indefinite time, resulting in undue delay. CMAX, Inc. v. Hall, 300 F.2d

24

265, 268 (9th Cir. 1962); Dependable Highway Express, Inc., 498 F.3d at 1066-67.

25

Here, the pending administrative appeals are related to this federal lawsuit under

26

Landis. As exemplified by the Court’s prior order granting Defendants’ motion for

27

partial summary judgment on res judicata grounds, the remaining administrative appeals

28

will likely narrow, settle, or simplify some or all the issues in this federal action. See
2
15cv1606-MMA (RBM)

1

Doc. No. 91. Further, Plaintiffs do not oppose staying the case. See Doc. No. 125. Thus,

2

it appears that a stay will neither cause damage nor wil the parties will suffer hardship or

3

inequity if a stay is imposed. Rather, a stay will contribute to the orderly course of

4

justice by permitting the administrative appeals to achieve finality and simplifying the

5

issues for the parties. Moreover, a stay will not result in undue delay as the

6

administrative appeals are already ongoing. Thus, the stay will be for a reasonable length

7

of time—until the administrative appeals reach finality, either by seeking or failing to

8

seek judicial review by writ of mandate.

9

Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ unopposed motion and STAYS the

10

case. Doc. No. 110. The Court ORDERS the parties to file a joint status report within

11

three business days of the remaining administrative appeals reaching finality. In light of

12

the stay and procedural posture of this case, the Court DENIES WITHOUT

13

PREJUDICE Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 94) and Plaintiffs’

14

motion to file documents under seal (Doc. No. 112). Once the stay is lifted, Defendants

15

may file a renewed motion for summary judgment and Plaintiffs’ may renew their motion

16

to file under seal. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court

17

ADMINISTRATIVELY TERMINATE Plaintiffs’ motions for taxation of costs. Doc.

18

Nos. 121, 122. The Court will address all motions for taxation of costs, if necessary,

19

upon resolution of all claims in this action. Accordingly, Plaintiffs may file renewed

20

motions for taxation of costs upon resolution of this action.

21
22

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: May 14, 2019

23
24
25
26
27
28
3
15cv1606-MMA (RBM)