Hoopa Valley Tribe v. United States Bureau of Reclamation

Opinion

HOOPA VALLEY TRIBE, No. 1:20-CV-01814-DAD-EPG Plaintiff, v. ORDER GRANTING FEDERAL DEFENDANTS’ UNOPPOSED MOTION TO RECLAMATION, et al., (Doc. No. 47) Defendant. The matter is before the court on the Federal Defendants’ unopposed motion to stay. This court, in its sole discretion, can stay this litigation pursuant to its inherent power to control its own docket. Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936). When reviewing a stay request, courts generally consider five factors: 1. the interest of the plaintiffs in proceeding expeditiously with this litigation or any particular aspect of it, and the potential prejudice to plaintiffs of a delay; 2. the burden which any particular aspect of the proceedings may impose on defendants; 3. the convenience of the court in the management of its cases, and the efficient use of judicial resources; 4. the interests of persons not parties to the civil litigation; and 5. the interest of the public in the pending civil and criminal litigation. Keating v. Office of Thrift Supervision, 45 F.3d 322, 324-25 (9th Cir. 1995). Applying these factors to this case, a stay is appropriate. Because a stay is “efficient for [the court’s own docket]” and is “the fairest course for the parties,” Mediterranean Enters., Inc. v. Ssangyong Corp., 708 F.2d 1458, 1465 (9th Cir. 1983), the Federal Defendants’ requested relief will be granted. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that: 1. The Federal Defendants’ unopposed motion to stay (Doc. No. 47) is GRANTED; 2. This matter is STAYED for a period of 60-days; 3. The Federal Defendants shall file a status report on May 12, 2021, informing the court whether it wishes to proceed with its motion to dismiss, or whether it needs additional time under the stay. B IT IS SO ORDERED. ~ sie Dated: _ March 15, 2021 wae os a UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE