Gonzalez et al v. CoreCivic, Inc.

Filing 52

ORDER Continuing Stay. Signed by Judge Janis L. Sammartino on 9/28/23.(aas)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12
13
14

CARLOS GONZALEZ, JUAN JOSE
MERINO-RODAS, MARIBEL
GUTIERREZ-CANCHOLA, GLADYS
CARRERA-DUARTE, and JENNYE
PAGOADA-LOPEZ, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated,

15
16
17
18

Case No.: 17-CV-2573 JLS (SBC)
ORDER CONTINUING STAY
(ECF. No. 51)

Plaintiffs,
v.
CORECIVIC, INC.,
Defendant.

19
20
21

Presently before the Court is the Parties’ Joint Status Report (“JSR,” ECF No. 51).
For the reasons stated below, the Court CONTINUES ITS STAY of the instant action.

22

BACKGROUND

23

This case involves allegations that Defendant CoreCivic, Inc. undercompensated

24

some civil immigration detainees and forced others to work while detained. See ECF No.

25

44 (the “Order”) at 5. The Court previously stayed this action pending the resolution of

26

class certification in a related case, Owino v. CoreCivic, Inc., 17-CV-1112. Order at 9–10.

27

After the Court certified the Owino class, the Court asked the Parties to file a joint status

28

report outlining their anticipated next steps in this litigation. See ECF No. 50.
1
17-CV-2573 JLS (SBC)

1

In the JSR, Plaintiffs indicate that they “understand that they are members in the

2

Owino [c]lass.” JSR at 2. The Parties therefore “intend to wait for the Owino [a]ction to

3

proceed to its completion” to take further action, reasoning that litigating this case

4

alongside Owino risks the “waste of judicial resources and/or prejudice [to either] party’s

5

position.” See id. Thus, the Court must determine whether to continue its previous stay.

6

LEGAL STANDARD

7

The Court may stay an action pending resolution of independent proceedings where

8

“it is efficient for its own docket and the fairest course for the parties.” Leyva v. Certified

9

Grocers of Cal., Ltd., 593 F.2d 857, 863 (9th Cir. 1979). When determining whether a stay

10

is appropriate, the Court must consider (1) “the possible damage which may result from

11

the granting of a stay,” (2) “the hardship or inequity which a party may suffer in being

12

required to go forward,” and (3) “the simplifying or complicating of issues, proof, and

13

questions of law which could be expected to result from a stay.” CMAX, Inc. v. Hall, 300

14

F.2d 265, 268 (9th Cir. 1962).

15

ANALYSIS

16

In the instant action, the above factors weigh in favor of a continued stay. First,

17

because Plaintiffs assert that they can obtain relief as members of the Owino class, staying

18

this case will not delay any potential recovery by Plaintiffs. See JSR at 2. Maintaining the

19

stay will not damage Defendant for a similar reason; if Plaintiffs indeed obtain relief

20

through the Owino action, that relief “would satisfy the claims in this action.” See id.

21

Moreover, because this action and the Owino action involve the same or intertwined

22

facts, witnesses, and legal claims, proceeding with this case would result in duplicative

23

discovery, added complexity, and increased litigation costs for both parties. See Order at

24

6, 9. By contrast, continuing the stay in this action will allow the parties in Owino to

25

resolve those shared legal and factual issues, which will simplify this action should it

26

resume. Thus, the second and third factors both weigh in favor of a stay.

27

///

28

///
2
17-CV-2573 JLS (SBC)

1

CONCLUSION

2

The Court therefore CONTINUES ITS STAY of the instant action pending the

3

resolution of Owino. The Parties SHALL FILE a joint status report, not to exceed ten (10)

4

pages, within fourteen (14) days of the resolution of Owino. Should Owino proceed in a

5

manner that is unsatisfactory to either Party, that Party may move to lift the Court’s stay

6

after conferring with the opposing Party.

7
8

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: September 28, 2023

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
17-CV-2573 JLS (SBC)