Lowe v. Gittere

Opinion

* * *

LAVELLE LOWE, Case No. 2:21-cv-01100-RFB-DJA

Plaintiff, ORDER

v.

WILLIAM GITTERE, et al.,

Defendants.

On April 2, 2024, the Defendants submitted a Motion to Stay pending resolution of the underlying criminal trial involving the Plaintiff. ECF No. 50. Plaintiff has not responded to this Motion. “[T]he power to stay proceedings is incidental to the power inherent in every court to control the disposition of the causes on its docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants.” Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936). In deciding whether to grant a stay, the court considers (1) the possible damage which may result from granting the stay; (2) the hardship or inequity which a party may suffer in being required to go forward; and (3) the orderly course of justice measured in terms of the simplifying or complicating of issues, proof, and questions of law which could be expected to result from a stay. Lockyer v. Mirant Corp., 398 F.3d 1098, 1110 (9th Cir. 2005) (quoting Landis, 299 U.S. at 268). Having considered these factors, the Court finds that a stay is warranted. /// /// /// /// ] IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Defendant’s (ECF No. 50) Motion to Stay is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties are to file a joint status report every ninety (90) days from the date of this order until the stay is lifted or this case is dismissed. DATED: May 03, 2024

“mm *

RICHARD F. BOULWARE, II UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

-2-