Nathaniel Bee v. ATP Tour, Inc.

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 NATHANIEL BEE, No. 2:26-cv-00358-DAD-SCR 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER GRANTING THE PARTIES’ REQUEST TO STAY THIS ACTION 14 ATP TOUR, INC., (Doc. No. 13) 15 Defendant.

16 17 On June 2, 2026, the parties filed a joint stipulation to stay this action pending completion 18 of mediation. (Doc. No. 13.) In their stipulation, the parties state as follows. Plaintiff filed the 19 complaint in this action on February 9, 2026, and the parties have stipulated to extend defendant’s 20 time to respond to the complaint on three occasions. (See Doc. Nos. 1, 6, 9, 11.) The parties have 21 scheduled mediation for September 8, 2026, and request that the court stay this action pending 22 their anticipated mediation. (Doc. No. 13 at 3.) 23 “[T]he power to stay proceedings is incidental to the power inherent in every court to 24 control the disposition of the causes on its docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for 25 counsel, and for litigants.” Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936); accord Stone v. INS, 26 514 U.S. 386, 411 (1995) (Breyer, J., dissenting) (“[W]e have long recognized that courts have 27 inherent power to stay proceedings and ‘to control the disposition of the causes on its docket with 28 economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants.’”) (quoting Landis, 299 U.S. 1 | at 254); Ernest Bock, LLC v. Steelman, 76 F.4th 827, 842 (9th Cir. 2023). Deciding whether to 2 | grant a stay pending the outcome of other proceedings “calls for the exercise of judgment, which 3 | must weigh competing interests and maintain an even balance.” Landis, 299 U.S. at 254-55. 4 In considering whether to grant a stay, this court must weigh several factors, including 5 | “[1] the possible damage which may result from the granting of a stay, [2] the hardship or 6 || inequity which a party may suffer in being required to go forward, and [3] the orderly course of 7 || justice measured in terms of the simplifying or complicating of issues, proof, and questions of law 8 | which could be expected to result from a stay.” CMAX, Inc. v. Hall, 300 F.2d 265, 268 (9th Cir. 9 | 1962) (citing Landis, 299 U.S. at 254-55); see also Ernest Bock, LLC, 76 F.4th at 842. A stay 10 | may be granted regardless of whether the separate proceedings are “judicial, administrative, or 11 | arbitral in character, and does not require that the issues in such proceedings are necessarily 12 | controlling of the action before the court.” Leyva v. Certified Grocers of Cal., Ltd., 593 F.2d 857, 13 | 864 (9th Cir. 1979). 14 The court concludes that the possible damage which may result from the granting of a stay 15 | here is minimal in light of the parties’ agreement embodied in their stipulation. Furthermore, the 16 || court concludes that “the orderly course of justice,” CMAX, 300 F.2d at 268, and considerations 17 | of “economy of time and effort for [the court], for counsel, and for litigants,” Landis, 299 U.S. at 18 | 254, weigh strongly in favor of staying this action in light of the parties’ scheduled mediation. 19 Accordingly, the parties’ joint stipulation to stay this action (Doc. No. 13) is GRANTED. 20 | The parties shall file a joint status report no later than October 8, 2026, regarding the outcome of 21 | their scheduled mediation, and every 90 days thereafter, informing this court as to the status of 22 | their mediation. 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: _ June 12, 2026 Dake A. 2, oyel 25 DALE A. DROZD UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

27 28