(PC) Gomez v. Gonzalez

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: March 20, 2024
• Docket: 1:22-cv-00977
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3

4 5

6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ANDY GOMEZ, Case No. 1:22-cv-00977-HBK (PC)

12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING CONSTRUED MOTION TO CONTINUE STAY 13 v. (Doc. No. 20) 14 GONZALES and CHARLES, ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO CONTINUE 15 Defendants. STAY OF CASE UNTIL FURTHER ORDER OF COURT 16

18 Pending before the Court is Defendants’ Motion for Extension of Time to File Notice to 19 Object to Early Settlement Conference and Extend Stay. (Doc. No. 20). Defendants request a 20 45-day extension of time to comply with the Court’s December 27, 2023 Order referring the case 21 to early ADR and staying the case for 90 days. (Id. at 1-2). The current deadline to opt out of 22 early ADR is March 26, 2024. (See Doc. No. 19). Defendants assert that a related case filed by 23 Plaintiff (E.D. Cal. Case No. 1:23-cv-01442-KES-BAM) is currently pending a Findings and 24 Recommendations to dismiss the case as duplicative, and counsel on the related matter is 25 expected to file a notice of appearance in this case but has not yet done so. (Doc. No. 20 at 1-2). 26 Accordingly, Defendants contend it would be a waste of judicial resources for this case to 27 proceed to early settlement at this time. (Id.). 28 The court is vested with broad discretion to stay a case. Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 1 | 705 (1997) (citing Landis v. North American Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936)). Such discretion 2 | may be exercised even if the issues before the court are not controlling. Leyva v. Certified 3 | Grocers of Cal., Ltd., 593 F. 2d 857, 863-64 (9th Cir. 1979). Further, Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b) 4 | provides for extending deadlines for good cause shown, if the request to extend time is made 5 | before the existing deadline. The Court finds good cause to grant the extension and continue the 6 | stay of the case for an additional 45 days, so that pending proceedings potentially affecting this 7 || case can be resolved before the Parties are required to respond regarding their intent to participate 8 | in early settlement. 9 ACCORDINGLY, it is ORDERED: 10 1. Defendants’ construed Motion to Continue Stay of Case (Doc. No. 20) is GRANTED. 11 The deadline for the parties to file a notice objecting to this case proceeding to an 12 early settlement conference is extended from March 26, 2024 to May 6, 2024. 13 2. This action will remain STAYED until further order. 14 3. No later than May 6, 2024, the parties shall file a notice if they object to proceeding to 15 an early settlement conference or if they believe that settlement is not currently 16 achievable. 17 4. Ifneither party has opted out of settlement by the expiration of the objection period, 18 the Court will assign this matter by separate Order to a United States Magistrate 19 Judge, other than the undersigned, for conducting the settlement conference. 20 5. Ifthe parties reach a settlement prior to the settlement conference, they SHALL file a 21 Notice of Settlement as required by Local Rule 160. 22 *3 | Dated: _ March 20, 2024 Mile. Wh fareh fackte 24 HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA 35 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

26 27 28