Damien Crum, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Bimbo Bakeries USA, Inc., et al.

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: October 27, 2025
• Docket: 1:25-cv-00985
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 DAMIEN CRUM, individually and on Case No. 1:25-cv-00985-KES-CDB behalf of all others similarly situated, 9 ORDER ON STIPULATION TO STAY Plaintiffs, ACTION PENDING HEARING ON MOTION 10 FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT v. IN RELATED ACTION 11 BIMBO BAKERIES USA, INC., et al., (Doc. 9) 12 Defendants. ORDER VACATING SCHEDULING 13 CONFERENCE AND RELATED DATES

14 February 4, 2026, Deadline

16 17 Pending before the Court is the parties’ joint stipulated request to stay this action pending 18 hearing on the motion for final approval of settlement in a related state court action. (Doc. 9). 19 Background 20 Plaintiff Damien Crum initiated this action with the filing of a complaint, on behalf of 21 himself and a putative class, in state court on June 27, 2025. (Doc. 1-1). Defendants Bimbo 22 Bakeries USA, Inc., and Bimbo Bakehouse, LLC, removed the action on August 7, 2025. (Doc. 23 1). Plaintiff asserts wage/hour and employment claims arising out of an employment relationship 24 with Defendants. See (Doc. 1-1). On October 24, 2025, the parties filed the pending joint stipulated 25 request to stay the action. (Doc. 9). 26 Stipulated Request to Stay 27 The parties represent that there is a pending settlement that “encompasses the putative class 1 No. 22CV-02604, in Merced County Superior Court (the “Juarez Action”). The parties provide 2 that preliminary approval of the class action settlement in the Juarez Action was granted on October 3 14, 2025, and the hearing on the motion for final approval of the class action settlement is scheduled 4 for January 28, 2026. The parties seek a stay of this action until after said hearing, as well as 5 vacatur of pending case management dates. Id. at 3. 6 “[T]he power to stay proceedings is incidental to the power inherent in every court to control 7 the disposition of the causes on its docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, 8 and for litigants.” Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936); Lockyer v. Mirant Corp, 398 9 F.3d 1098, 1109 (9th Cir. 2005). Deciding whether to grant a stay pending the outcome of other 10 proceedings “calls for the exercise of judgment, which must weigh competing interests and 11 maintain an even balance.” United States v. Howen, No. 1:21-cv-00106-DAD-SAB, 2022 WL 12 1004832, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 4, 2022) (quoting Landis, 299 U.S. at 254). “[I]f there is even a fair 13 possibility that the . . . stay will work damage to someone else, the party seeking the stay must make 14 out a clear case of hardship or inequity.” Lockyer, 398 F.3d at 1112; United States v. Aerojet 15 Rocketdyne Holdings, Inc., 381 F. Supp. 3d 1240, 1250 (E.D. Cal. May 8, 2019). 16 In considering whether to grant a stay, this Court must weigh several factors, including “[1] 17 the possible damage which may result from the granting of a stay, [2] the hardship or inequity 18 which a party may suffer in being required to go forward, and [3] the orderly course of justice 19 measured in terms of the simplifying or complicating of issues, proof, and questions of law which 20 could be expected to result from a stay.” CMAX, Inc. v. Hall, 300 F.2d 265, 268 (9th Cir. 1962) 21 (citing Landis, 299 U.S. at 254–55). In granting and lifting stays, a court must weigh “the length 22 of the stay against the strength of the justification given for it.” Yong v. I.N.S., 208 F.3d 1116, 1119 23 (9th Cir. 2000). “If a stay is especially long or its term is indefinite, [courts] require a greater 24 showing to justify it.” Id. 25 Here, the interests of judicial economy and efficiency are served by staying this case until 26 the hearing on the class settlement in the Juarez Action. Proceeding with the litigation of this action 27 risks wasting judicial resources, as the parties may settle their claims herein in the Juarez Action. 1 | hardship, particularly given the parties stipulated to the request to stay and the case will not be 2 | delayed significantly given the parties’ representation that the hearing is on January 28, 2026. (Doc. 3 | 9at3). The orderly course of justice weighs toward the grant of the requested stay in order to avoid 4 | complicating the issues and allowing the parties to direct their resources to the hearing on the 5 | motion for final approval of the class action settlement in the Juarez Action that encompasses the 6 | class claims in this action. See Hamilton v. Knight Transportation, Inc., No. 5:21-CV-01859- 7 | MEME-SP, 2024 WL 1461958, at *5 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 27, 2024). Therefore, because the Landis 8 | factors weigh toward granting of the stay, the Court finds that a stay of proceedings is appropriate 9 | in this case. 10 For good cause shown in the parties’ stipulation, this action will be stayed pending the 11 | hearing on the motion for final approval of the class settlement in the Juarez Action. 12 Conclusion and Order 13 Accordingly, in light of the parties’ representations and good cause appearing, IT IS 14 | HEREBY ORDERED: 15 1. This action is STAYED pending the hearing on the motion for final approval of the class 16 action settlement in Luis Juarez v. Bimbo Bakeries USA, Inc., et al., No. 22CV-02604, in 17 Merced Conty Superior Court. 18 2. The parties are DIRECTED to file a joint status report by February 4, 2026, informing the 19 Court of the status of the motion for final approval of the settlement in the Juarez Action 20 and setting forth their respective positions regarding further litigation of this action. 21 3. All pending case management dates (Doc. 4), including the scheduling conference set for 22 November 6, 2025, are VACATED, to be reset as necessary following the parties’ filing of 23 the joint status report. 24 | ITIS SO ORDERED. 29 Dated: _ October 27, 2025 | Ww VV KD 26 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 27 28