Juarez v. Jani-King of California, Inc.

N.D. California

Juarez v. Jani-King of California, Inc.

DecidedSeptember 13, 2019

Docket4:09-cv-03495

StatusUnknown

This text of Juarez v. Jani-King of California, Inc. (Juarez v. Jani-King of California, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, N.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Juarez v. Jani-King of California, Inc., (N.D. Cal. 2019).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ALEJANDRO JUAREZ, ET AL., CASE NO. 09-cv-03495-YGR

12 Plaintiffs, ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR A STAY 13 vs. Re: Dkt. No. 288 14 JANI-KING OF CALIFORNIA, INC., ET AL., 15 Defendants.

16 Pending before the Court is defendants’ Motion to Stay Proceedings Pending Decision of 17 the California Supreme Court. (Dkt. No. 288.) Having read and considered the filings on the 18 motion, and for good cause showing, the motion is DENIED.1 19 Federal courts have broad, inherent authority to stay their own proceedings pending the 20 resolution of another matter, when the resolution of that other matter could affect the case before 21 the court. See Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936); Mediterranean Ents., Inc. v. 22 Ssangyong Corp., 708 F.2d 1458, 1465 (9th Cir. 1983) (“A trial court may, with propriety, find it 23 is efficient for its own docket and the fairest course for the parties to enter a stay of an action 24 before it, pending resolution of independent proceedings which bear upon the case.”) (citation 25 omitted). However, “[o]nly in rare circumstances will a litigant in one case be compelled to stand 26 aside while a litigant in another settles the rule of law that will define the rights of both.” Landis, 27 1 299 U.S. at 255. Indeed, the moving party “must make out a clear case of hardship or inequity in 2 being required to go forward, if there is even a fair possibility that the stay for which he prays will 3 work damage to some one else.” Id. 4 In determining whether a stay is appropriate, the district court must weigh competing 5 interests, including “the possible damage which may result from the granting of a stay, the 6 hardship or inequity which a party may suffer in being required to go forward, and the orderly 7 course of justice measured in terms of the simplifying or complicating of issues, proof, and 8 questions of law which could be expected to result from a stay.” CMAX, Inc. v. Hall, 300 F.2d 9 265, 268 (9th Cir. 1962). 10 Here, the defendants’ motion is based on their contention that the litigation should be 11 stayed in anticipation of the California Supreme Court ruling on an anticipated certification from 12 the Ninth Circuit regarding the retroactivity of the rule established in Dynamax Ops. W., Inc. v. 13 Superior Court, 4 Cal. 5th 903 (Cal. 2018). 14 The harm to plaintiffs is obvious. This case is over ten years old. Memories have and are 15 fading. Evidence is becoming more and more stale. Delay only serves the defendants. The only 16 harms to which defendants point are those associated with every litigation, which is insufficient to 17 support a request for a stay. See Meyer v. Bebe Stores, Inc., No. 14-CV-00267-YGR, 2015 WL 18 1223658, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 17, 2015) (“[D]efendant would suffer no specific hardship other 19 than the typical costs of litigation should this case proceed in conjunction with the pendency of the 20 Sensia Petition.”); Glick v. Performant Fin. Corp., No. 16-CV-05461-JST, 2017 WL 786293, at 21 *2 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 27, 2017) (“Defendant has not clearly established that it would face hardship or 22 inequity if required to move forward. The fact that waiting for the outcome of the appeals and 23 Petition might save Defendant the costs of further litigation does not satisfy this requirement.”). 24 Moreover, the Supreme Court has cautioned that “if there is even a fair possibility that the stay . . . 25 will work damage to some one else”—which, as discussed above, is the case here—the party 26 seeking the stay “must make out a clear case of hardship or inequity.” Landis, 299 U.S. at 255. 27 Further, the Ninth Circuit has not even certified the question, much less the California 1 Defendants have not carried their burden here. Thus, in considering all three factors 2 addressed by the parties, the motion is DENIED. 3 Briefing shall continue pursuant to the schedule set forth in Docket No. 294. 4 This Order terminates Docket No. 288. 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. 6 7 Dated: September 13, 2019 YVONN ONZALEZ ROGERS 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE 9 10 ll a 12

13 14

15 16 € = 17 6 Zz 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ALEJANDRO JUAREZ, ET AL., CASE NO. 09-cv-03495-YGR

12 Plaintiffs, ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR A STAY 13 vs. Re: Dkt. No. 288 14 JANI-KING OF CALIFORNIA, INC., ET AL., 15 Defendants.

16 Pending before the Court is defendants’ Motion to Stay Proceedings Pending Decision of 17 the California Supreme Court. (Dkt. No. 288.) Having read and considered the filings on the 18 motion, and for good cause showing, the motion is DENIED.1 19 Federal courts have broad, inherent authority to stay their own proceedings pending the 20 resolution of another matter, when the resolution of that other matter could affect the case before 21 the court. See Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936); Mediterranean Ents., Inc. v. 22 Ssangyong Corp., 708 F.2d 1458, 1465 (9th Cir. 1983) (“A trial court may, with propriety, find it 23 is efficient for its own docket and the fairest course for the parties to enter a stay of an action 24 before it, pending resolution of independent proceedings which bear upon the case.”) (citation 25 omitted). However, “[o]nly in rare circumstances will a litigant in one case be compelled to stand 26 aside while a litigant in another settles the rule of law that will define the rights of both.” Landis, 27 1 299 U.S. at 255. Indeed, the moving party “must make out a clear case of hardship or inequity in 2 being required to go forward, if there is even a fair possibility that the stay for which he prays will 3 work damage to some one else.” Id. 4 In determining whether a stay is appropriate, the district court must weigh competing 5 interests, including “the possible damage which may result from the granting of a stay, the 6 hardship or inequity which a party may suffer in being required to go forward, and the orderly 7 course of justice measured in terms of the simplifying or complicating of issues, proof, and 8 questions of law which could be expected to result from a stay.” CMAX, Inc. v. Hall, 300 F.2d 9 265, 268 (9th Cir. 1962). 10 Here, the defendants’ motion is based on their contention that the litigation should be 11 stayed in anticipation of the California Supreme Court ruling on an anticipated certification from 12 the Ninth Circuit regarding the retroactivity of the rule established in Dynamax Ops. W., Inc. v. 13 Superior Court, 4 Cal. 5th 903 (Cal. 2018). 14 The harm to plaintiffs is obvious. This case is over ten years old. Memories have and are 15 fading. Evidence is becoming more and more stale. Delay only serves the defendants. The only 16 harms to which defendants point are those associated with every litigation, which is insufficient to 17 support a request for a stay. See Meyer v. Bebe Stores, Inc., No. 14-CV-00267-YGR, 2015 WL 18 1223658, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 17, 2015) (“[D]efendant would suffer no specific hardship other 19 than the typical costs of litigation should this case proceed in conjunction with the pendency of the 20 Sensia Petition.”); Glick v. Performant Fin. Corp., No. 16-CV-05461-JST, 2017 WL 786293, at 21 *2 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 27, 2017) (“Defendant has not clearly established that it would face hardship or 22 inequity if required to move forward. The fact that waiting for the outcome of the appeals and 23 Petition might save Defendant the costs of further litigation does not satisfy this requirement.”). 24 Moreover, the Supreme Court has cautioned that “if there is even a fair possibility that the stay . . . 25 will work damage to some one else”—which, as discussed above, is the case here—the party 26 seeking the stay “must make out a clear case of hardship or inequity.” Landis, 299 U.S. at 255. 27 Further, the Ninth Circuit has not even certified the question, much less the California 1 Defendants have not carried their burden here. Thus, in considering all three factors 2 addressed by the parties, the motion is DENIED. 3 Briefing shall continue pursuant to the schedule set forth in Docket No. 294. 4 This Order terminates Docket No. 288. 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. 6 7 Dated: September 13, 2019 YVONN ONZALEZ ROGERS 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE 9 10 ll a 12

13 14

15 16 € = 17 6 Zz 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Juarez v. Jani-King of California, Inc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/juarez-v-jani-king-of-california-inc-cand-2019.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack