A.G. v. Everett School District et al

Filing 20

ORDER denying with leave to refile Plaintiff's 14 Motion for Voluntary Nonsuit; denying Plaintiff's 16 Motion to Stay, signed by Judge Richard A. Jones. (SWT)

1
2

HONORABLE RICHARD A. JONES

3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

11
12
13

A.G.,
Plaintiff,

14
v.

15
16

Case No. C17-1409-RAJ
ORDER

EVERETT SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al.,
Defendants.

17
18
19

I.

This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff A.G.’s Motion for Voluntary

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

INTRODUCTION

Nonsuit (Dkt. # 14) and Motion to Stay (Dkt. # 16). Defendants, Everett School District,
Cathy Woods, James Dean, and Craig Verver, oppose the Motion to Stay. Dkt. ## 17,
19. For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiff’s Motions are DENIED. Dkt. ## 14, 16.
II.

DISCUSSION
Plaintiff filed this action against Defendants on September 18, 2017, alleging that

Plaintiff was sexually abused by Verver, a teacher in the Everett School District.
Dkt. # 1. Plaintiff then filed a lawsuit in state court against Defendant Everett School
ORDER – 1

1
2

District alleging the same facts alleged in her Complaint. Dkt. # 18. Defendants

3

represent that discovery is largely complete in that matter. Id. Defendants, Everett

4

School District, Cathy Woods, and James Dean, filed an Answer to the Complaint on

5

October 18, 2017. Dkt. # 10. Defendant Craig Verver filed his Answer on April 30,

6

2018. Dkt. # 13. A separate but related case was filed on September 30, 2016. Dkt. # 9.

7

The related case was filed by another woman, A.T., also alleging that she was sexually

8

abused by Verver. Id. On January 9, 2018, the Court granted the defendants’ motion for

9

summary judgment in that case. See A.T. v. Everett Sch. Dist. et al., No. 2:16-cv-1536-

10

JLR. In A.T., Judge Robart found that the plaintiff’s claims began to accrue when she

11

knew or had reason to know of the injury that formed the basis of her claims, and that

12

because the evidence showed that she knew or had reason to know of her injuries by May

13

of 2013, her federal claims were untimely. A.T. v. Everett Sch. Dist., 300 F. Supp. 3d

14

1243, 1258 (W.D. Wash. 2018). The order granting summary judgment is currently on

15

appeal.

16

On June 6, 2018, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Voluntary Nonsuit in this matter,

17

requesting that the Court grant her leave to voluntarily dismiss her Complaint without

18

prejudice. Dkt. # 14. Plaintiff stated that, after examining the decision issued in A.T., she

19

decided that “further litigation in this lawsuit should end given the status of federal

20

statute of limitation tolling law for federal claims.” Dkt. # 14. Six days later, Plaintiff

21

filed this Motion to Stay, requesting “[i]n the alternative of asking the Court to

22

voluntarily dismiss her complaint without prejudice,” that the Court stay this matter

23

pending the final outcome of the appeal in A.T. Dkt. # 16.

24

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

25

Landis v. N.A. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254-255 (1936); see also Lockyer v. Mirant Corp., 398

26

F.3d 1098, 1109 (9th Cir. 2005). “A trial court may, with propriety, find it is efficient for

27
28

ORDER – 2

1

its own docket and the fairest course for the parties to enter a stay of an action before it,

2

pending resolution of independent proceedings which bear upon the case.” Leyva v.

3

Certified Grocers of Cal., Ltd., 593 F.2d 857, 863 (9th Cir. 1979). “A stay should not be

4

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

5

reasonable time in relation to the urgency of the claims presented to the court.” Id. at

6

864. When considering a motion to stay, the district court weighs three factors: (1) the

7

possible damage which may result from the granting of a stay, (2) the hardship or

8

inequity which a party may suffer in being required to go forward, and (3) the orderly

9

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

10

and questions of law which could be expected to result from a stay. CMAX, Inc. v. Hall,

11

300 F.2d 265, 268 (9th Cir. 1962).

12

Plaintiff argues that a stay will simplify the issues in this case because the related

13

matter presents identical federal claims and both involve the same evidence of

14

“fraudulent concealment,” which Plaintiff argues will toll the applicable statute of

15

limitations. In A.T., the plaintiff’s federal claims were dismissed based on a finding of

16

when she knew or had reason to know of her injuries. This was a mostly fact-based

17

finding that was individual to the circumstances in that case. There is no discussion of

18

fraudulent concealment in that order. Plaintiff provides no other argument to support her

19

assertion that resolution of the appeal in A.T. will “conclusively determine whether

20

Plaintiff’s federal claims will proceed.”

21

Plaintiff also argues that a stay will not prejudice Defendants as they would only

22

benefit from a stay in discovery pending the outcome of the appeal. However, Defendant

23

represents that discovery in Plaintiff’s state case is ongoing and that the same resources

24

expended in that matter would be expended in this one. Therefore, a stay in discovery

25

would only serve to delay this matter. After considering the relevant factors and the

26

applicable law, the Court finds that the circumstances in this case do not weigh in favor

27

of a stay. Plaintiff’s Motion to Stay is DENIED. Dkt. # 16.

28

ORDER – 3

1
2

Despite Plaintiff’s wording in her Motion to Stay, it does not appear that she

3

wishes to dismiss her Complaint. Therefore, Plaintiff’s Motion for Voluntary Nonsuit is

4

DENIED with leave to refile. Dkt. # 14.

5
6

DATED this 8th day of August, 2018.

7

A

8
9

The Honorable Richard A. Jones
United States District Judge

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

ORDER – 4