Pontier v. GEICO Insurance

• Court: District Court, S.D. California
• Decided: February 2, 2024
• Docket: 3:21-cv-00199
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DAVID PONTIER, Case No.: 21cv199-LL-AHG

12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 13 v. STAY

14 GEICO INSURANCE, et al., [ECF No. 67] 15 Defendants. 16 17 Before the Court is Plaintiff David Pontier’s Motion to stay this case pending 18 resolution of the petition for writ of certiorari he filed with the U.S. Supreme Court on 19 December 11, 2023 seeking review of a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth 20 District that affirmed an order by this Court in a related case. ECF No. 67. For the reasons 21 set forth below, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion. 22 I. BACKGROUND 23 This case originated on August 5, 2020 when Plaintiff filed a complaint in federal 24 court in Nevada against GEICO Insurance, Farmers Insurance, JP Morgan Chase Bank, 25 N.A., Phia Group, LLC, the State Bar of California, the State of California, Joseph Dang, 26 Glenn C. Nusbaum, Kevin Yoo, and Paul E. Kim, M.D. Inc. alleging conversion, bad faith, 27 fraud, and violations of the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”). 28 ECF No. 1. 1 On December 18, 2020, in the related case of Dang v. Pontier, No. 19cv1519-LL- 2 AHG (S.D. Cal.), the Court granted Joseph Dang’s motion to enjoin further prosecution of 3 this case in the District of Nevada under the first-to-file rule. ECF No. 22. The Court found 4 that the facts and issues in the counterclaims in Dang v. Pontier were substantially similar 5 to the facts and issues in the Nevada case. ECF No. 22-1 at 7–8. Subsequently, on February 6 1, 2021, the Nevada case—the instant case—was transferred to this district. ECF Nos. 24, 7 25. 8 Plaintiff appealed the order enjoining the suit in Nevada to the Ninth Circuit, and on 9 September 12, 2023, the Ninth Circuit affirmed this Court’s injunction of the Nevada suit 10 and dismissed all other issues raised by Plaintiff for lack of jurisdiction. Mandate of USCA, 11 Dang v. Pontier, No. 19cv1519-LL-AHG (S.D. Cal Oct. 11, 2023), ECF No. 175. 12 On December 11, 2023, Plaintiff filed a petition for a writ of certiorari to the 13 Supreme Court seeking review of the Ninth Circuit decision affirming this Court’s 14 injunction of the Nevada case. Notice from USCA, Dang v. Pontier, No. 19cv1519-LL- 15 AHG (S.D. Cal Dec. 19, 2023), ECF No. 184. On January 18, 2024, Pontier filed the instant 16 Motion to stay this case. ECF No. 67. 17 II. LEGAL STANDARD 18 “[T]he power to stay proceedings is incidental to the power inherent in every court 19 to control the disposition of the causes on its docket with economy of time and effort for 20 itself, for counsel, and for litigants.” Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 1936). A trial 21 court may “find it is efficient for its own docket and the fairest course for the parties to 22 enter a stay of an action before it, pending resolution of independent proceedings which 23 bear upon the case,” whether or not the issues in such proceedings are controlling in the 24 action before the court. Leyva v. Certified Grocers of California, Ltd., 593 F.2d 857, 863 25 (9th Cir. 1979) (citations omitted). In considering whether to stay a proceeding, a court 26 should weigh the competing interests that will be affected by the granting or denial of a 27 stay, such as the following: “the possible damage which may result from the granting of a 28 stay, the hardship or inequity which a party may suffer in being required to go forward, 1 and the orderly course of justice measured in terms of the simplifying or complicating of 2 issues, proof, and questions of law which could be expected to result from a stay.” Lockyer 3 v. Mirant Corp., 398 F.3d 1098, 1110 (9th Cir. 2005) (citation omitted). The movant bears 4 the burden of showing a stay is appropriate. Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 708 (1997) 5 (citing Landis, 299 U.S. at 255). 6 III. DISCUSSON 7 Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, seeks to stay this case for sixty days pending resolution 8 of his petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court. ECF No. 67 at 2. In support, 9 Plaintiff contends that (1) he has medical and health issues and a stay of sixty days will 10 allow him to address his medical needs of spinal surgery and hip replacement surgery, and 11 (2) a stay will allow him to go through his physical records to locate and resubmit 12 documents and motions he had filed with the Clerk’s Office in April 2021—for which he 13 received certified mail receipts—but are not on the docket. Id. at 2–3. Plaintiff also states 14 that Defendants do not oppose a sixty-day stay. Id. at 2. 15 The Court, while sympathetic to Plaintiff’s health issues, does not find that a stay is 16 necessary or appropriate at this time. Although Plaintiff argues that the case should be 17 stayed while his petition for writ of certiorari is pending, his reasons in support are based 18 on health and personal reasons and not related at all to any decision by the Supreme Court 19 or how that decision will impact this case in any way, including in terms of simplifying or 20 complicating issues, proof, and questions of law. Therefore, Plaintiff has not met his burden 21 to show that a stay is appropriate while his petition for writ of certiorari is pending. 22 The Court also finds Plaintiff has not met his burden to show a stay is appropriate 23 for health or medical reasons. Plaintiff appears to argue that he will suffer hardship or 24 inequity if he is required to move forward with the case due to health and medical reasons. 25 Plaintiff states that he suffers from severe chronic pain which limits his ability to walk, 26 stand, and sit and requests the stay to allow him “to address medical need of spinal surgery, 27 hip replacement surgery.” Id. However, he does not specify when his surgeries are 28 scheduled or why it is a hardship to move forward, and the Court is unable to determine if | || Plaintiff's surgeries are imminent or not yet scheduled. If medical reasons prevent Plaintiff 2 || from being able to meet any deadlines in the current case scheduling order [ECF No. 61], 3 may meet and confer with Defendants to propose a joint motion to amend the scheduling 4 || order or if they will not agree, file a motion on his own requesting the same. 5 Finally, the Court finds Plaintiff has not met his burden to show a stay is appropriate 6 ||for his refiling reasons. Plaintiff states that he located three certified mail receipts 7 || indicating that the Clerk’s Office signed for documents he submitted for filing, but those 8 ||documents are not in the “case history” or docket. ECF No. 67 at 3. He also states that he 9 || filed several motions or documents in April 2021 that are not on the docket. /d. at 2. The 10 ||Court does not find it appropriate to stay the case for Plaintiff to search his records. If 11 |}motions or documents were unfiled in April 2021, Plaintiff has had ample time to discover 12 || and remedy any error because almost three years have passed since then. Plaintiff does not 13 || specify what the motions or documents are, and the Court cannot determine if their absence 14 || would cause him to suffer hardship or inequity by moving forward. Plaintiff may search 15 files, but the Court does not find it appropriate to halt this entire case for sixty days to 16 || allow him to do so. 17 || IV. CONCLUSION 18 Plaintiff has not met his burden of showing that a stay is warranted, and the Court 19 || finds that a stay would interfere with the orderly course of justice in this lawsuit, filed over 20 || three years ago. For the reasons set forth above, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's Motion to 21 this case. 22 IT IS SO ORDERED. 23 Dated: February 2, 2024 NO 24 DE | 25 Honorable Linda Lopez United States District Judge 27 28