(PC) Gomez v. Gonzalez

Opinion

ANDY GOMEZ, Case No. 1:22-cv-00977-HBK (PC)

Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING CONSTRUED MOTION TO CONTINUE STAY v. (Doc. No. 20) GONZALES and CHARLES, ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO CONTINUE Defendants. STAY OF CASE UNTIL FURTHER ORDER OF COURT

Pending before the Court is Defendants’ Motion for Extension of Time to File Notice to Object to Early Settlement Conference and Extend Stay. (Doc. No. 20). Defendants request a 45-day extension of time to comply with the Court’s December 27, 2023 Order referring the case to early ADR and staying the case for 90 days. (Id. at 1-2). The current deadline to opt out of early ADR is March 26, 2024. (See Doc. No. 19). Defendants assert that a related case filed by Plaintiff (E.D. Cal. Case No. 1:23-cv-01442-KES-BAM) is currently pending a Findings and Recommendations to dismiss the case as duplicative, and counsel on the related matter is expected to file a notice of appearance in this case but has not yet done so. (Doc. No. 20 at 1-2). Accordingly, Defendants contend it would be a waste of judicial resources for this case to proceed to early settlement at this time. (Id.). The court is vested with broad discretion to stay a case. Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 705 (1997) (citing Landis v. North American Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936)). Such discretion may be exercised even if the issues before the court are not controlling. Leyva v. Certified Grocers of Cal., Ltd., 593 F. 2d 857, 863-64 (9th Cir. 1979). Further, Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b) provides for extending deadlines for good cause shown, if the request to extend time is made before the existing deadline. The Court finds good cause to grant the extension and continue the stay of the case for an additional 45 days, so that pending proceedings potentially affecting this case can be resolved before the Parties are required to respond regarding their intent to participate in early settlement. ACCORDINGLY, it is ORDERED: 1. Defendants’ construed Motion to Continue Stay of Case (Doc. No. 20) is GRANTED. The deadline for the parties to file a notice objecting to this case proceeding to an early settlement conference is extended from March 26, 2024 to May 6, 2024. 2. This action will remain STAYED until further order. 3. No later than May 6, 2024, the parties shall file a notice if they object to proceeding to an early settlement conference or if they believe that settlement is not currently achievable. 4. Ifneither party has opted out of settlement by the expiration of the objection period, the Court will assign this matter by separate Order to a United States Magistrate Judge, other than the undersigned, for conducting the settlement conference. 5. Ifthe parties reach a settlement prior to the settlement conference, they SHALL file a Notice of Settlement as required by Local Rule 160. *3 | Dated: _ March 20, 2024 Mile. Wh fareh fackte HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE