Carter v. Allstate Property and Casualty Insurance Company

W.D. Washington

Carter v. Allstate Property and Casualty Insurance Company

DecidedSeptember 17, 2025

Docket2:25-cv-01540

StatusUnknown

This text of Carter v. Allstate Property and Casualty Insurance Company (Carter v. Allstate Property and Casualty Insurance Company) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. Washington primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Carter v. Allstate Property and Casualty Insurance Company, (W.D. Wash. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4

5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 9 10 JAMES CARTER, et al., CASE NO. 2:25-cv-01540-LK 11 Plaintiffs, ORDER GRANTING STIPULATED 12 v. MOTION TO STAY LITIGATION 13 ALLSTATE PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, 14 Defendant. 15 16 This matter comes before the Court on the parties’ Stipulated Motion to Stay Litigation. 17 Dkt. No. 11. The parties ask that this litigation be stayed until December 15, 2025, “to allow the 18 Parties an opportunity to resolve this matter.” Id. at 1. For the reasons explained below, the motion 19 is granted. 20 “[T]he power to stay proceedings is incidental to the power inherent in every court to 21 control the disposition of the causes on its docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for 22 counsel, and for litigants.” Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936). The Court “may order 23 a stay of the action pursuant to its power to control its docket and calendar and to provide for a 24 1 just determination of the cases pending before it.” Leyva v. Certified Grocers of Cal., Ltd., 593 2 F.2d 857, 864 (9th Cir. 1979). In considering whether to grant a stay, courts consider several 3 factors, including “the possible damage which may result,” “the hardship or inequity which a party 4 may suffer in being required to go forward,” and “the orderly course of justice[.]” CMAX, Inc. v.

5 Hall, 300 F.2d 265, 268 (9th Cir. 1962). 6 A stay is appropriate here because the three-month delay in proceedings will not cause any 7 damage, nor any hardship or inequity to any party, and will promote the orderly course of justice; 8 indeed, if the parties are able to resolve this matter in the interim, it will result in significant savings 9 of the parties’ and the Court’s resources. The Court thus GRANTS the parties’ motion. Dkt. No. 10 11. All upcoming case deadlines in the Court’s prior order, Dkt. No. 7, are stayed until December 11 15, 2025. Should the case reach a settlement, the parties must notify the Court in accordance with 12 the Court’s Standing Order for All Civil Cases. See Dkt. No. 6-1 at 3. Otherwise, by December 16, 13 2025, the parties must file a joint status report and discovery plan. 14 Dated this 17th day of September, 2025.

15 A 16 Lauren King United States District Judge 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

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

1 2 3 4

5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 9 10 JAMES CARTER, et al., CASE NO. 2:25-cv-01540-LK 11 Plaintiffs, ORDER GRANTING STIPULATED 12 v. MOTION TO STAY LITIGATION 13 ALLSTATE PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, 14 Defendant. 15 16 This matter comes before the Court on the parties’ Stipulated Motion to Stay Litigation. 17 Dkt. No. 11. The parties ask that this litigation be stayed until December 15, 2025, “to allow the 18 Parties an opportunity to resolve this matter.” Id. at 1. For the reasons explained below, the motion 19 is granted. 20 “[T]he power to stay proceedings is incidental to the power inherent in every court to 21 control the disposition of the causes on its docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for 22 counsel, and for litigants.” Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936). The Court “may order 23 a stay of the action pursuant to its power to control its docket and calendar and to provide for a 24 1 just determination of the cases pending before it.” Leyva v. Certified Grocers of Cal., Ltd., 593 2 F.2d 857, 864 (9th Cir. 1979). In considering whether to grant a stay, courts consider several 3 factors, including “the possible damage which may result,” “the hardship or inequity which a party 4 may suffer in being required to go forward,” and “the orderly course of justice[.]” CMAX, Inc. v.

5 Hall, 300 F.2d 265, 268 (9th Cir. 1962). 6 A stay is appropriate here because the three-month delay in proceedings will not cause any 7 damage, nor any hardship or inequity to any party, and will promote the orderly course of justice; 8 indeed, if the parties are able to resolve this matter in the interim, it will result in significant savings 9 of the parties’ and the Court’s resources. The Court thus GRANTS the parties’ motion. Dkt. No. 10 11. All upcoming case deadlines in the Court’s prior order, Dkt. No. 7, are stayed until December 11 15, 2025. Should the case reach a settlement, the parties must notify the Court in accordance with 12 the Court’s Standing Order for All Civil Cases. See Dkt. No. 6-1 at 3. Otherwise, by December 16, 13 2025, the parties must file a joint status report and discovery plan. 14 Dated this 17th day of September, 2025.

15 A 16 Lauren King United States District Judge 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Carter v. Allstate Property and Casualty Insurance Company, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/carter-v-allstate-property-and-casualty-insurance-company-wawd-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack