Betty Johnson v. Janet Maratita

Ninth Circuit

Betty Johnson v. Janet Maratita

619 F. App'x 651

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedOctober 19, 2015

Docket13-17241

StatusUnpublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 619 F. App'x 651 (Betty Johnson v. Janet Maratita) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Betty Johnson v. Janet Maratita, 619 F. App'x 651 (9th Cir. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

The parties are familiar with the facts of the case and we do not repeat them here. Proposed intervenors Janet U. Maratita and Jesus I. Taisague appeal the district court’s denial of their Ex Parte Motion to Lift Stay (Motion to Lift the Stay) for the purpose of pursuing a motion to intervene in a class action brought by Betty Johnson, on behalf of herself and similarly situated persons who were beneficiaries of the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI) Defined Benefit Plan.

1. Every court possesses inherent power to “control the disposition of the causes on its docket with economy of time and effort,” which calls for the “exercise of judgment.” Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254, 57 S.Ct. 163, 81 L.Ed. 153 (1936). Accordingly, we review the district court’s denial of the Motion to Lift the Stay for abuse of discretion. Valdivia v. Schwarzenegger, 599 F.3d 984, 988 (9th Cir.2010). Under the abuse-of-discretion standard, we cannot reverse the district court order absent a “definite and firm conviction that the district court committed a clear error of judgment in the conclusion it reached upon a weighing of relevant factors.” Id.

2. The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the Motion to Lift the Stay. The court reached its decision after considering: (1) the burden of litigation, (2) lack of changed circumstances, (3) gross underfunding of the Retirement Fund, and (4) the risk of placing 4,000 retirees’ benefits at further risk. In addition, the court did not err by requiring a showing of “changed circumstances” as a prerequisite for lifting the stay. The district court’s order demonstrates that the court considered the totality of the circumstances and properly exercised its discretionary power in refusing to lift the stay.

AFFIRMED.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

MEMORANDUM **

The parties are familiar with the facts of the case and we do not repeat them here. Proposed intervenors Janet U. Maratita and Jesus I. Taisague appeal the district court’s denial of their Ex Parte Motion to Lift Stay (Motion to Lift the Stay) for the purpose of pursuing a motion to intervene in a class action brought by Betty Johnson, on behalf of herself and similarly situated persons who were beneficiaries of the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI) Defined Benefit Plan.

1. Every court possesses inherent power to “control the disposition of the causes on its docket with economy of time and effort,” which calls for the “exercise of judgment.” Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254, 57 S.Ct. 163, 81 L.Ed. 153 (1936). Accordingly, we review the district court’s denial of the Motion to Lift the Stay for abuse of discretion. Valdivia v. Schwarzenegger, 599 F.3d 984, 988 (9th Cir.2010). Under the abuse-of-discretion standard, we cannot reverse the district court order absent a “definite and firm conviction that the district court committed a clear error of judgment in the conclusion it reached upon a weighing of relevant factors.” Id.

2. The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the Motion to Lift the Stay. The court reached its decision after considering: (1) the burden of litigation, (2) lack of changed circumstances, (3) gross underfunding of the Retirement Fund, and (4) the risk of placing 4,000 retirees’ benefits at further risk. In addition, the court did not err by requiring a showing of “changed circumstances” as a prerequisite for lifting the stay. The district court’s order demonstrates that the court considered the totality of the circumstances and properly exercised its discretionary power in refusing to lift the stay.

AFFIRMED.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

619 F. App'x 651, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/betty-johnson-v-janet-maratita-ca9-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack