Edwards-Yu v. DeJoy

Opinion

1 2 3 4

5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 7 9 Plaintiff, Case No. C21-156-RSM-MLP 10 v. ORDER 12 Defendant. 13

14 This matter comes before the Court on Defendant’s Motion to Stay the Pretrial Deadlines 15 and Trial Setting (“Defendant’s Motion”) due to Defendant’s pending summary judgment 16 motion. (Dkt. # 48.) Plaintiff opposes any delay to pretrial deadlines without also delaying the 17 trial date but argues she “has been preparing for trial for over [one] year and any further delay 18 will deprive Plaintiff of potential relief demanded through the lawsuit.” (Dkt. # 49 at 2.) 19 Courts have inherent power to stay proceedings. Landis v. North American Co., 299 U.S. 20 248, 254 (1936). In considering the appropriateness of a stay, courts balance the competing 21 interests of the parties, including: (1) the damage that may result from a stay; (2) inequity 22 suffered by a party if the case moves forward; and (3) any impact to the “orderly course of 23 justice.” Lockyer v. Mirant Corp., 398 F.3d 1098, 1110 (9th Cir. 2005) (citation omitted). 1 Here, trial is currently set for November 8, 2022. (Dkt. # 12.) The Court has issued a 2 Report and Recommendation, with a noting date of October 21, 2022, recommending that 3 Defendant’s summary judgment motion be granted and that this action be dismissed. (Dkt. # 51.) 4 Therefore, the Court finds a stay is warranted in this matter until the resolution of this Court’s

5 Report and Recommendation. 6 Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s Motion (dkt. # 48). The trial date and 7 pending deadlines are hereby STAYED pending resolution of the Report and Recommendation. 8 Dated this 4th day of October, 2022. 9 A United States Magistrate Judge 11

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23