Acedo v. County of San Diego

Filing 48

ORDER: (1) Denying 35 Motion to Stay; and (2) Denying as moot Motion for Extension of Time. Signed by Judge Janis L. Sammartino on 1/23/2019. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(jpp)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

DANIEL ACEDO,

Case No.: 17-CV-2592 JLS (JLB)
Plaintiff,

12
13
14

ORDER: (1) DENYING MOTION TO
STAY; AND (2) DENYING AS MOOT
MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF
TIME

v.
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, CARLOS
OMEDA, JOHN DOE, and JANE DOE 1
THROUGH 100,

15
16

(ECF No. 35)

Defendants.

17
18
19

Presently before the Court is Plaintiff Daniel Acedo’s Motion for Stay and Extension

20

of Time. ECF No. 35. Plaintiff requests the Court stay the current litigation and grant him

21

an extension to file an amended complaint. For the following reasons, the Court DENIES

22

the Motion.

23

“District courts have inherent authority to stay proceedings before them.” Rohan ex

24

rel. Gates v. Woodford, 334 F.3d 803, 817 (9th Cir. 2003) abrogated on other grounds by

25

Ryan v. Gonzales, 568 U.S. 57 (2013). “[T]he power to stay proceedings is incidental to

26

the power inherent in every court to control the disposition of the causes on its docket with

27

economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants.” Landis v. N. Am. Co.,

28

299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936). In determining whether to stay an action, a court must weigh
1
17-CV-2592 JLS (JLB)

1

competing interests that the granting or denial of a stay will affect. CMAX, Inc. v. Hall,

2

300 F.2d 265, 268 (9th Cir. 1962). As articulated by the Ninth Circuit, a court should use

3

the three Landis factors in this analysis:

4

Among these competing interests are the 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 terms of the simplifying or complicating of issues, proof, and questions
of law which could be expected to result from a stay.

5
6
7
8

Id. (citing Landis, 299 U.S. at 254–55).

9

“The proponent of a stay bears the burden of establishing its need.” Clinton v. Jones,

10

520 U.S. 681, 708 (1997) (citing Landis, 299 U.S. at 255.) “If there is even a fair possibility

11

that the stay for which [the movant] prays for will work damage to someone else,” the

12

movant “must make out a clear case of hardship or inequity in being required to go

13

forward.” CMAX, 300 F.2d at 268 (quoting Landis, 299 U.S. at 255).

14

Plaintiff requests a stay because he claims to have uncovered a potential cause of

15

action for legal malpractice against his previous attorney. Mot. at 1-2. According to

16

Plaintiff, the stay is necessary in order to toll the statute of limitations, allow him to present

17

his claim to the County of San Diego Board of Supervisors, and to give him time to obtain

18

the records necessary to state his new claim. Id. at 6-8.

19

Here, Plaintiff has failed to meet his burden to show that a stay is necessary.

20

Defendants have filed a motion to dismiss which is currently pending and a stay would

21

burden their interest in a speedy resolution of the case, simply so that Plaintiff may

22

investigate his possible claim against a third party. The Court also does not find that a stay

23

would simplify the issues, proof, or questions of law in this case in any way. And forcing

24

Plaintiff to investigate his potential claims while litigating the issues currently before the

25

Court would not be a “clear case of hardship or inequity in being required to go forward.”

26

See CMAX, 300 F.2d at 268 (quoting Landis, 299 U.S. at 255). Therefore, the Court

27

DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion for Stay.

28

///
2
17-CV-2592 JLS (JLB)

1

In addition to requesting a stay, Plaintiff also requests an extension of time to file an

2

amended complaint. See Mot. at 8. After filing the present Motion, however, Plaintiff

3

subsequently filed an amended complaint. See ECF No. 40. Therefore, the Court DENIES

4

AS MOOT Plaintiff’s request for an extension of time, and accepts Plaintiff’s Amended

5

Complaint despite the late filing.

6
7

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 23, 2019

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
17-CV-2592 JLS (JLB)