Collins v. Collins et al

Filing 273

ORDER that this case is stayed sua sponte pending a determination relating to the global settlement. ECF Nos. 255 , 261 , and 265 are denied without prejudice to Plaintiff refiling once the stay is lifted. Briefing will proceed as t o ECF No. 267 only because that motion directly concerns the parties' settlement and briefing will aid the Court in resolving the ongoing disputes. Signed by Chief Judge Miranda M. Du on 12/5/2019. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - LH)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

5

***

6

RONALD COLLINS,

Case No. 3:16-cv-00111-MMD-WGC
Plaintiff,

7

ORDER

v.
8
JOSHUA COLLINS, et al.,
9
Defendants.
10
11

The parties entered into a global settlement of three cases currently before the

12

Court (Case Nos. 3:17-cv-417-MMD-WGC, 3:16-cv-111-MMD-WGC and 3:18-cv-329-

13

MMD-CLB). (ECF No. 264.) Since the parties reached settlement, Plaintiff Ronald Collins

14

has filed multiple motions in this matter (ECF Nos. 265, 267, 268), including for a hearing

15

regarding the parties’ settlement. 1 The Court will sua sponte stay this case.

16

A district court has discretionary power to stay proceedings in its own court. Landis

17

v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254–55 (1936). In deciding whether to grant a stay, the court

18

should consider “the possible damage which may result from the granting of a stay, the

19

hardship or inequity which a party may suffer in being required to go forward, and

20

the orderly course of justice measured in terms of the simplifying or complicating of issues,

21

proof, and questions of law which could be expected to result from a stay.” Lockyer v.

22

Mirant Corp., 398 F.3d 1098, 1110 (9th Cir. 2005) (quoting Landis, 299 U.S. at 268). The

23

court should also consider the judicial resources that may be saved by staying the action.

24

See, e.g., Pate v. DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc., No. 2:12-cv-01168-MMD-CWH, 2012 WL

25

3532780, at *2 (D. Nev. Aug. 14, 2012).

26

///

27

///

28

1Defendants

also moved for an extension of time to respond in opposition to
Plaintiff’s motion for a hearing (ECF No. 271), which has been granted (ECF No. 272).

1

The Court finds that significant resources will be saved by ordering a stay. Further,

2

there would be no prejudice, damage, hardship, or inequity to the parties by the Court

3

staying this action.

4
5

It is therefore ordered that this case is stayed sua sponte pending a determination
relating to the global settlement.

6

It is further ordered that ECF Nos. 255, 261, and 265 are denied without prejudice

7

to Plaintiff refiling once the stay is lifted. Briefing will proceed as to ECF No. 267 only

8

because that motion directly concerns the parties’ settlement and briefing will aid the Court

9

in resolving the ongoing disputes.

10

DATED THIS 5th day of December 2019.

11
12

MIRANDA M. DU
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2