Hooper et al v. City Of Seattle, Washington et al

Filing 221

ORDER granting Plaintiffs' 210 Motion to Stay Proceedings Pending Appeal. Plaintiffs must promptly notify the Court if their Rule 23(f) petition is granted or denied. Signed by Judge Ricardo S Martinez. (PM)

Download PDF
  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 8 9 10 LISA HOOPER, et al., 11 Plaintiffs, 12 v. 13 Case No. C17-77 RSM ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS PENDING APPEAL CITY OF SEATTLE, et al., 14 Defendants. 15 16 This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs’ Motion to Stay Proceedings Pending Appeal. 17 Dkt. #210. On October 4, 2017, the Court denied Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification. See 18 Dkt. #209. Soon afterward, Plaintiffs petitioned the Ninth Circuit for permission to appeal this 19 20 21 denial. See Dkt. #212. Plaintiffs now ask the Court to stay the proceedings in this matter until the Ninth Circuit either denies Plaintiffs’ Rule 23(f) petition, or, if Plaintiffs’ petition is accepted, 22 following the Ninth Circuit’s disposition of Plaintiffs’ appeal. Dkt. #210 at 11. Defendants 23 oppose Plaintiffs’ motion, arguing that Plaintiffs fail to demonstrate a stay is warranted. 24 25 26 Dkt. #217. For the reasons discussed herein, the Court agrees with Plaintiffs and GRANTS their motion. 27 “Rule 23(f) petitions do not automatically stay district court proceedings—only the 28 district court can grant a stay . . . and it has discretion whether or not to do so.” Lambert v. ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO STAY - 1   1 Nutraceutical Corp., 870 F.3d 1170, 1180 (9th Cir. 2017). 1 When a stay is proposed, district 2 courts must weigh the competing interests affected by the grant or refusal of a stay. Lockyer v. 3 Mirant Corp., 398 F.3d 1098, 1110 (9th Cir. 2005) (quoting CMAX, Inc. v. Hall, 300 F.2d 265, 4 268 (9th Cir. 1962)). The competing interests considered in this analysis include: (1) “the 5 6 7 possible damage which may result from the granting of a stay”; (2) “the hardship or inequity which a party may suffer in being required to go forward”; and (3) “the orderly course of justice 8 measured in terms of the simplifying or complicating of issues, proof, and questions of law which 9 could be expected to result from a stay.” Id. Additionally, if there is “even a fair possibility” 10 11 12 13 that a stay will “work damage to someone else,” the party seeking the stay “must make out a clear case of hardship or inequity in being required to go forward.” Landis v. North Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 255 (1936). 14 A stay of the proceedings is warranted. The Court is convinced that while the scope and 15 strategy of Plaintiffs’ case may be affected by resolution of their Rule 23(f) petition, Defendants 16 will not be harmed if the Court grants a stay. In fact, although Defendants may have to wait to 17 18 file dispositive motions, Defendants will not incur additional litigation costs pending resolution 19 of Plaintiffs’ petition, and Defendants can continue enforcing their encampment cleanup policies 20 without interruption. On the other hand, requiring Plaintiffs to move forward will affect their as- 21 applied, constitutional challenges to Defendants’ policies, as they will be limited to seeking and 22 23 using discovery material specific to the named, individual Plaintiffs. That Defendants have 24 1 25 26 27 28 The parties disagree on the standard the Court should apply to decide if a stay is warranted. Compare Dkt. #210 at 3–4, with Dkt. #217 at 3–4. Upon review of the relevant case law, the Court finds that the factors set out in Landis v. North American Co., 299 U.S. 248 (1936), are the proper factors to consider in deciding whether a stay is warranted here. See Finder v. Leprino Foods Co., Case No. 1:13-CV-02059AWI-BAM, 2017 WL 1355104, at *1–3 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 20, 2017) (noting that some district courts within the Ninth Circuit do not apply an “injunction-type standard” when parties seek stay of an action pending interlocutory appeal and applying Landis factors to determine if a stay pending an interlocutory appeal is warranted). ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO STAY - 2   1 offered “broadly applicable evidence that is no different than would be allowed if a class were 2 certified,” is thus inapposite and does not support the denial of a stay. See Dkt. #217 at 4. The 3 Court is also convinced that a stay promotes the “orderly course of justice” and judicial efficiency 4 as the parties will not have to engage in discovery efforts which may later have to be recalibrated, 5 6 7 nor will the Court and the parties have to duplicate their efforts if the Ninth Circuit allows Plaintiffs to proceed as a class. For these reasons, the Court agrees with Plaintiffs and GRANTS 8 their Motion to Stay (Dkt. #210). Plaintiffs must promptly notify the Court if their Rule 23(f) 9 petition is granted or denied. 10 DATED this 20th day of December 2017. 11 12 13 14 A RICARDO S. MARTINEZ CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO STAY - 3

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?