Johnston v. Hartman

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: May 5, 2025
• Docket: 3:23-cv-00521
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 * * * 4 RICHARD JOHNSTON, Case No. 3:23-cv-00521-MMD-CLB 5 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO STAY

6 v. [ECF No. 32]

7 ROBERT HARTMAN, et al.,

8 Defendants.

9 10 Before the Court is Plaintiff Richard Johnston’s (“Johnston”) motion to stay case, 11 (ECF No. 32). Johnston requests a 90-day stay of this case so a separate, but related 12 case—3:23-cv-00408-MMD-CLB—can be adjudicated. (Id.) Defendants filed a non- 13 opposition to the motion. (ECF No. 33.) 14 It is well established that district courts have the inherent power to control their 15 dockets and manage their affairs; this includes the power to strike or deny motions to 16 streamline motion practice and promote judicial efficiency. Ready Transp., Inc. v. AAR 17 Mfg., Inc., 627 F.3d 402, 404–05 (9th Cir. 2010); Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 18 (1936). Additionally, “the power to stay proceedings is incidental to the power inherent in 19 every court to control the disposition of the causes on its docket with economy of time and 20 effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants.” Landis, 299 U.S. at 254. When exercising 21 that discretion, courts are guided by the goals of securing the just, speedy, and 22 inexpensive resolution of actions. See FED. R. CIV. P. 1. 23 To that end, the Court considers several articulated factors when deciding whether 24 to stay a case: “the competing interests which will be affected by the granting or refusal to 25 grant a stay must be weighed” including the possible damage which may result from the 26 granting of a stay, the hardship or inequity which a party may suffer in being required to 27 go forward, and the orderly course of justice measured in terms of the simplifying or 28 complicating of issues, proof, and questions of law which could be expected to result from 1 || astay.” CMAX, Inc. v. Hall, 300 F.2d 265, 268 (9th Cir. 1962). 2 The Court has considered these factors and finds, in the exercise of its sound 3 || discretion, that a brief stay of these proceedings for 90 days is appropriate. 4 For good cause appearing, IT IS ORDERED that Johnston’s motion to stay case, 5 || (ECF No. 32), is GRANTED. 6 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this action is STAYED for 90 days from the date 7 || of this order, at which point the stay shall be automatically lifted. 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. 9 DATED: May 5, 2025 . . 10 11 UNITED ere noiT JUDGE 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28