Turner et al v. Shari's Management Corporation

Filing 20

ORDER Staying Case. Plaintiffs' motion to stay the case is GRANTED, and this case is STAYED. Dkt. No. 19 . The Court ORDERS the parties to submit a Joint Status Report (JSR) every NINETY (90) days, throughout the duration of the stay. Signed by Judge Jamal N Whitehead. (KRA) (cc: Defendant Shari's via USPS)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

6
7
8

MARY TURNER; TYLER
CRUTCHFIELD,
Plaintiffs,

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

CASE NO. 3:24-cv-05577
ORDER STAYING CASE

v.
SHARI'S MANAGEMENT
CORPORATION; DOES 1-10,
Defendants.

This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiffs Mary Turner and Tyler
Crutchfield’s Motion to Stay Case. Dkt. No. 19. “[T]he power to stay proceedings is
incidental to the power inherent in every court to control the disposition of the
causes on its docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for
litigants.” Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936). In determining whether a
stay is appropriate, the Court must weigh various interests, including: (1) the
possible damage to result from granting the stay; (2) the hardship to the parties if
the suit proceeds; and (3) the “orderly course of justice measured in terms of the
simplifying or complicating of issues, proof, and questions of law which could be

23
ORDER STAYING CASE - 1

1

expected to result from a stay.” Lockyer v. Mirant Corp., 398 F.3d 1098, 1110 (9th

2

Cir. 2005).

3

Here, the interests of the parties, of the Court, and of justice warrant a stay.

4

According to Plaintiffs, Defendant Shari’s Management Corporation (“Shari’s”) has

5

been non-cooperative and non-responsive throughout litigation; did not attend the

6

Parties’ scheduled mediation; is “experiencing significant financial difficulties,

7

including adverse judgments and operational challenges”; and “may be on the verge

8

of filing for bankruptcy.” Dkt. No. 19 at 2–3. Plaintiffs state that “[a]llowing the

9

case to proceed without Defendant’s cooperation or participation would prejudice

10

Plaintiffs by delaying resolution and increasing litigation costs” and that “[a] stay

11

allows the parties and the Court to await clarity regarding Defendant’s financial

12

and legal status.” Id. at 4. Plaintiffs further state that given “the strong likelihood”

13

that Shari’s will file for bankruptcy, “it is prudent to stay this case preemptively to

14

avoid unnecessary motion practice or procedural complications.” Id. Shari’s does not

15

oppose the motion to stay. See Dkt.; see also LCR 7(b)(2) (“[I]f a party fails to file

16

papers in opposition to a motion, such failure may be considered by the court as an

17

admission that the motion has merit.”). Indeed, no party indicates that a stay will

18

cause hardship.

19

Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ motion to stay the case is GRANTED, and this case is

20

STAYED. Dkt. No. 19. The Court ORDERS the parties to submit a Joint Status

21

Report (JSR) every NINETY (90) days, throughout the duration of the stay,

22

informing the Court about any relevant updates, including information, if any,

23

regarding bankruptcy proceedings involving Shari’s. If Shari’s remains nonORDER STAYING CASE - 2

1

responsive and therefore unavailable to participate in the JSR, Plaintiffs should say

2

so in their submission(s) to the Court.

3

It is so ORDERED.

4

Dated this 5th day of March, 2025.

a

5

Jamal N. Whitehead
United States District Judge

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
ORDER STAYING CASE - 3