Garcia v. M.G Luna, Inc.

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: April 24, 2023
• Docket: 1:20-cv-00190
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MIYOSHI GARCIA, et. al. Case No. 1:20-cv-00190-ADA-HBK 12 Plaintiffs, ORDER GRANTING STAY AS TO PLAINTIFFS AND DEFENDANTS 13 v. WESTLAND FAMRS LLC AND MADERA PERSIMMON GROWERS, INC. 14 WESTLAND FARMS, LLC, et. al. (Doc. No. 38) 15 Defendants. 16 17 Pending before the Court is the joint motion to stay filed on behalf of Plaintiffs and 18 Defendants Westland Farms LLC and Madera Persimmon Growers, Inc. (collectively, the 19 “Parties”) on April 17, 2023. (Doc. No. 38). The Parties1 request that the Court stay this action, 20 including all discovery and other deadlines due to fact that the Department of Industrial Relations 21 Division of Labor Standards Enforcement (“DLSE”) recently served Defendant Madera 22 Persimmon Growers, Inc. with a DLSE citation in connection with alleged wage and hour 23 violations committed by Defendant M.G. Luna Inc. in this action. The Parties have agreed to 24 have discussions and explore the possibility of meditation between the Parties and the DLSE. 25 The Parties request a stay of this action during the course of these discussions in an effort to 26 1 Defendants Maria Guadalupe Luna and M.G. Luna, Inc. did not join in the motion to stay. A 27 Clerk’s entry of default was previously entered against Defendants Maria Guadalupe Luna and M.G. Luna, Inc. for failure to timely respond to the original complaint. (See Doc. No. 11). 28 1 | conserve judicial resources and permit the Parties to direct their resources toward a possible 2 | settlement. 3 The court is vested with broad discretion to stay a case. Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 4 | 705 (1997) (citing Landis v. North American Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936)). The “party 5 || requesting a stay bears the burden of showing that the circumstances justify an exercise of that 6 | discretion.” Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 433-34 (2009). Generally, “stays should not be 7 | mdefinite in nature.” Dependable Highway Exp., Inc. v. Navigators Ins. Co., 498 F.3d 1059, 8 | 1066-67 (9th Cir. 2007). If a stay is especially long or indefinite, a greater showing is required to 9 | justify it and the court must “balance the length of any stay against the strength of the justification 10 | given for it.” Yong v. LN.S., 208 F.3d 1116, 1119 (9th Cir. 2000). The parties have met their 11 | burden to justify a stay of this action. 12 Accordingly, it is ORDERED: 13 1. The joint motion to stay filed on behalf of Plaintiffs and Defendants Westland Farms 14 LLC and Madera Persimmon Growers, Inc. (collectively, the “Parties”) (Doc. No. 38) 15 is GRANTED and this case is stayed only as to these Parties only until further 16 order of Court. 17 2. The Parties shall file a joint status report every ninety (90) days to advise the Court of 18 the status of settlement discussions with the Department of Industrial Relations 19 Division of Labor Standards Enforcement (“DLSE”) and whether a further stay is 20 warranted. 21 | Dated: __April 23, 2023 Mihaw. Wh. foareh fackte 23 HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

25 26 27 28