Dougan v. Centerplate, Inc.

• Court: District Court, S.D. California
• Decided: March 23, 2023
• Docket: 3:22-cv-01496
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 KEVIN DOUGAN, as an individual and Case No.: 22-CV-1496 JLS (BLM) on behalf of all others similarly situated, 12 ORDER DENYING JOINT MOTION Plaintiff, 13 TO CONTINUE EARLY NEUTRAL v. EVALUATION CONFERENCE AND 14 CORRESPONDING DATES AND CENTERPLATE, INC., a corporation; 15 DEADLINES SODEXO, INC., a corporation;

16 CENTERPLATE OF DELAWARE, INC., (ECF No. 7) a corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, 17 inclusive, 18 Defendants. 19

20 Presently before the Court is the Parties’ Joint Motion to Continue Early Neutral 21 Evaluation Conference and Corresponding Dates and Deadlines (“Joint Mot.,” ECF No. 22 7). The Parties report that they have scheduled private mediation for September 11, 2023, 23 which “will moot or otherwise substantially affect the procedural posture of this litigation.” 24 Joint Mot. at 3. Accordingly, the Parties request a stay of the proceedings pending 25 mediation and a 150-day continuance of certain pre-trial dates and deadlines recently 26 established by Magistrate Judge Barbara L. Major. See Joint Mot.; ECF No. 6. 27 / / / 28 1 A district court “may, with propriety, find it is efficient for its own docket and the 2 || fairest course for the parties to enter a stay of an action before it, pending resolution of 3 ||independent proceedings which bear upon the case.” Leyva v. Certified Grocers of Cal., 4 ||Ltd., 593 F.2d 857, 863 (9th Cir. 1979). District courts have “broad discretion to stay 5 || proceedings.” Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 706 (1997). Granting a stay “is appropriate 6 || when it serves the interests of judicial economy and efficiency.” Rivers v. Walt Disney 7 || Co., 980 F. Supp. 1358, 1360 (C.D. Cal. 1997). “A stay should not be granted unless it 8 || appears likely the other proceedings will be concluded within a reasonable time in relation 9 || to the urgency of the claims presented to the court.” Leyva, 593 F.2d at 864. 10 Here, the Court finds that granting the Parties’ requests for a stay and continuance 11 || would not serve the interests of judicial economy and efficiency. Defendants removed this 12 to federal court on October 3, 2022. See Docket. The case has remained essentially 13 ||stagnant since that time. Now, the Parties request a delay of approximately five months so 14 || that they may participate in private mediation. See Joint Mot. at 3. The Parties provide no 15 || explanation as to why mediation must take place in September, as opposed to some earlier 16 ||date. See id. The Court encourages the Parties’ efforts to resolve this matter, but, in the 17 ||absence of an explanation as to why such a lengthy delay is necessary, the Court 1s 18 || unwilling to pause the proceedings. 19 Accordingly, the Court DENIES the Parties’ Joint Motion to Continue Early Neutral 20 || Evaluation Conference and Corresponding Dates and Deadlines (ECF No. 7). 21 IT IS SO ORDERED. 22 ||Dated: March 23, 2023 peach Jt, oe waited 23 on. Janis L. Sammartino A United States District Judge 25 26 27 28