Ramos v. Nielsen

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: August 15, 2024
• Docket: 3:18-cv-01554
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 CRISTA RAMOS, et al., Case No. 18-cv-01554-EMC

8 Plaintiffs, ORDER RE PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION 9 v. FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES

10 ALEJANDRO MAYORKAS, et al., Docket No. 228 11 Defendants.

12 13 14 The Court DEFERS ruling on Plaintiffs’ motion for attorneys’ fees and STAYS 15 proceedings pending a decision by the Supreme Court in Lackey v. Stinnie, No. No. 23-621. The 16 Court exercises its discretion to stay pursuant to Landis v. North Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248 (1936). 17 See 23andMe, Inc. v. Ancestry.com DNA, LLC, No. 18-cv-02791-EMC, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18 188327, at *7 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 2, 2018) (noting that “Landis is generally applied where there is a 19 request to stay proceedings pending a decision in a different case”) (emphasis in original). 20 Compare Index Newspapers LLC v. United States Marshals Serv., 977 F.3d 817, 824 (9th Cir. 21 2020) (indicating that the standard for a stay as articulated in Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418 22 (2009), applies where the issue is whether there should be a stay pending appeal in the same case). 23 Under Landis, there are “‘three non-exclusive factors’” that are considered in deciding whether a 24 stay is appropriate pending a decision in a different case:

25 (1) ‘the possible damage which may result from the granting of a stay’; (2) ‘the hardship or inequity which a party may suffer in being 26 required to go forward’; and (3) ‘the orderly course of justice measured in terms of the simplifying or complicating of issues, 27 proof, and questions of law.’” A district court’s concern for the last 1 In re PG&E Corp. Sec. Litig., 100 F.4th 1076, 1085 (9th Cir. 2024). 2 Neither party has claimed any real injury or hardship should a stay be issued or not. 3 Accordingly, in this case, the focus is on the orderly course of justice. The Court agrees with the 4 || government that Stinnie has the potential to be dispositive of the pending motion or at least could 5 inform the decision in this case. See Stinnie v. Holcomb, 77 F.4th 200, 203 (4th Cir. 2023) (en 6 || banc) (addressing the issue of whether a plaintiff “who wins a preliminary injunction but — for 7 whatever reason — does not secure a final judgment” can “qualify as a prevailing party”). Asa 8 || result, a stay is appropriate, particularly as a stay should not be unduly lengthy. Stinnie is now set 9 to be heard by the Supreme Court in October 2024. The parties shall file a status report within 10 || two weeks after the Supreme Court issues its decision in Stinnie. 11 12 IT IS SO ORDERED.

14 Dated: August 15, 2024

16 EDWAS®) M. CHEN 17 United States District Judge 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28