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)
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?