Murrillo v. OBI Seafoods LLC

W.D. Washington

Murrillo v. OBI Seafoods LLC

DecidedSeptember 18, 2025

Docket2:25-cv-00588

StatusUnknown

This text of Murrillo v. OBI Seafoods LLC (Murrillo v. OBI Seafoods LLC) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. Washington primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Murrillo v. OBI Seafoods LLC, (W.D. Wash. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4

5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 9 10 MARIELA MURILLO et al, CASE NO. 2:25-cv-00588-LK 11 Plaintiffs, ORDER GRANTING STAY 12 v. 13 OBI SEAFOODS, LLC, 14 Defendant. 15

16 This matter comes before the Court on the parties’ Joint Stipulated Motion to Stay 17 Proceedings. Dkt. No. 33. The parties request that the Court stay proceedings in this matter through 18 November 19, 2025 for the parties “to attend mediation to attempt to resolve this 19 litigation.” Id. at 1. The mediation is scheduled for November 12, 2025. Id. For the reasons 20 explained below, the motion is granted. 21 “[T]he power to stay proceedings is incidental to the power inherent in every court to 22 control the disposition of the causes on its docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for 23 counsel, and for litigants.” Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936). The Court “may order 24 a stay of the action pursuant to its power to control its docket and calendar and to provide for a 1 just determination of the cases pending before it.” Leyva v. Certified Grocers of Cal., Ltd., 593 2 F.2d 857, 864 (9th Cir. 1979). In considering whether to grant a stay, courts consider several 3 factors, including “the possible damage which may result,” “the hardship or inequity which a party 4 may suffer in being required to go forward,” and “the orderly course of justice[.]” CMAX, Inc. v.

5 Hall, 300 F.2d 265, 268 (9th Cir. 1962). 6 A stay is appropriate here because the two-month delay in proceedings will not cause any 7 damage, nor any hardship or inequity to any party, and will promote the orderly course of justice. 8 If the parties resolve this matter through mediation, there will be significant savings of the parties’ 9 and the Court’s resources. The Court thus GRANTS the parties’ motion. Dkt. No. 33. All 10 upcoming case deadlines in the Court’s prior order, Dkt. No. 29, are stayed until November 19, 11 2025. Additionally, further briefing on Defendant OBI Seafoods, LLC’s motion to dismiss, Dkt. 12 No. 32, is STAYED pending the outcome of the parties’ scheduled mediation. Should the case 13 reach a settlement, the parties must notify the Court in accordance with the Court’s Standing Order 14 for All Civil Cases. See Dkt. No. 14-1 at 3. Otherwise, by November 19, 2025, the parties must

15 file a joint status report and proposed revised briefing schedule on the motion to dismiss. 16 Dated this 18th day of September, 2025. 17 A 18 Lauren King United States District Judge 19 20 21 22 23 24

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

1 2 3 4

5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 9 10 MARIELA MURILLO et al, CASE NO. 2:25-cv-00588-LK 11 Plaintiffs, ORDER GRANTING STAY 12 v. 13 OBI SEAFOODS, LLC, 14 Defendant. 15

16 This matter comes before the Court on the parties’ Joint Stipulated Motion to Stay 17 Proceedings. Dkt. No. 33. The parties request that the Court stay proceedings in this matter through 18 November 19, 2025 for the parties “to attend mediation to attempt to resolve this 19 litigation.” Id. at 1. The mediation is scheduled for November 12, 2025. Id. For the reasons 20 explained below, the motion is granted. 21 “[T]he power to stay proceedings is incidental to the power inherent in every court to 22 control the disposition of the causes on its docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for 23 counsel, and for litigants.” Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936). The Court “may order 24 a stay of the action pursuant to its power to control its docket and calendar and to provide for a 1 just determination of the cases pending before it.” Leyva v. Certified Grocers of Cal., Ltd., 593 2 F.2d 857, 864 (9th Cir. 1979). In considering whether to grant a stay, courts consider several 3 factors, including “the possible damage which may result,” “the hardship or inequity which a party 4 may suffer in being required to go forward,” and “the orderly course of justice[.]” CMAX, Inc. v.

5 Hall, 300 F.2d 265, 268 (9th Cir. 1962). 6 A stay is appropriate here because the two-month delay in proceedings will not cause any 7 damage, nor any hardship or inequity to any party, and will promote the orderly course of justice. 8 If the parties resolve this matter through mediation, there will be significant savings of the parties’ 9 and the Court’s resources. The Court thus GRANTS the parties’ motion. Dkt. No. 33. All 10 upcoming case deadlines in the Court’s prior order, Dkt. No. 29, are stayed until November 19, 11 2025. Additionally, further briefing on Defendant OBI Seafoods, LLC’s motion to dismiss, Dkt. 12 No. 32, is STAYED pending the outcome of the parties’ scheduled mediation. Should the case 13 reach a settlement, the parties must notify the Court in accordance with the Court’s Standing Order 14 for All Civil Cases. See Dkt. No. 14-1 at 3. Otherwise, by November 19, 2025, the parties must

15 file a joint status report and proposed revised briefing schedule on the motion to dismiss. 16 Dated this 18th day of September, 2025. 17 A 18 Lauren King United States District Judge 19 20 21 22 23 24

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Murrillo v. OBI Seafoods LLC, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/murrillo-v-obi-seafoods-llc-wawd-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack