Russell Road Food and Beverage, LLC v. Galam et al

Filing 139

ORDER that 135 Motion to Stay Case or Modify Scheduling Order is DENIED. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe on 3/21/14. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

9

RUSSELL ROAD FOOD AND
BEVERAGE, LLC,

10
Plaintiff(s),
11
vs.
12
MIKE GALAM, et al.,
13
Defendant(s).
14
15

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 2:13-cv-00776-JCM-NJK
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
STAY OR TO MODIFY THE
SCHEDULING ORDER
(Docket No. 135)

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to stay or to modify the scheduling order.

16

Docket No. 135. Defendants filed a response and Plaintiff filed a reply. Docket Nos. 137, 138. The

17

Court finds this matter properly resolved without oral argument. See Local Rule 78-2. For the

18

reasons discussed below, the motion is hereby DENIED.

19

Courts have inherent power to stay the cases before them as a matter of controlling their own

20

docket and calendar. See Landis v. North American Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254-55 (1936); see also

21

Lockyer v. Mirant Corp., 398 F.3d 1098, 1110-13 (9th Cir. 2005) (reviewing Ninth Circuit law on

22

issue, and finding a stay was inappropriate). The movant bears the burden of showing that a stay is

23

warranted. See Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 708 (1997).
Plaintiff has not shown that the requested relief is appropriate here.1 Plaintiff argues first that

24
25

this case should be stayed or slowed because separate litigation has been initiated in California that

26
1

27
28

The motion seeks an indefinite stay or, in the alternative, a three month extension to the
deadlines in the scheduling order. This case is roughly two months from the close of discovery. See
Docket No. 114.

1

may bear upon Mike Galam’s ownership interests. See Mot. at 4. Plaintiff further argues that, inter

2

alia, the Galam Defendants’ standing to assert their counterclaims depends on a finding of

3

ownership. See Reply at 4. Plaintiff’s showing is deficient. For example, “[a] stay should not be

4

granted unless it appears likely the other proceedings will be concluded within a reasonable time in

5

relation to the urgency of the claims presented to the court.” Leyva v. Certified Grocers of Cal., Ltd.,

6

593 F.2d 857, 864 (9th Cir. 1979). Here, it appears that a case management conference has yet to

7

occur in the California case and Plaintiff does not provide any indication what the schedule will

8

likely be. See Mot. at 10 (“once the schedule is set in the Canico Ownership Dispute case in

9

California, the parties may be able to more efficiently coordinate discovery” (emphasis added)); see

10

also id. (noting that the California dispute may be arbitrated, and that the arbitration schedule would

11

likely be known in less than three months). This shortcoming alone warrants denial of the motion as

12

it relates to the California action. See, e.g., Fleming v. Coverstone , 2010 WL 4955546, *2 (S.D.

13

Cal. Dec. 1, 2010).

14

The Court also finds unpersuasive Plaintiff’s argument that this case should be stayed

15

pending resolution of the preliminary injunction appeal, as the Ninth Circuit has repeatedly

16

cautioned against delaying proceedings at the district court level in order to attempt to ascertain the

17

views of the Ninth Circuit panel hearing a preliminary injunction appeal. See, e.g., DISH Network

18

Corp. v. FCC, 653 F.3d 771, 776 (9th Cir. 2011) (quoting Sports Form, Inc. v. United Press Int’l,

19

Inc., 686 F.2d 750, 753 (9th Cir. 1982) for the proposition that, inter alia, “our disposition of appeals

20

from most preliminary injunctions may provide little guidance as to the appropriate disposition on

21

the merits”).

22
23

Accordingly, the motion to stay this case or continue the deadlines in the scheduling order is
hereby DENIED.

24

IT IS SO ORDERED.

25

DATED: March 21, 2014

26
27

______________________________________
NANCY J. KOPPE
United States Magistrate Judge

28
2