Riley v. Acco Engineered Systems

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: October 18, 2024
• Docket: 1:21-cv-01785
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 EARL RILEY, III, Case No. 1:21-cv-01785-JLT-HBK 12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO CONTINUE CASE 13 v. DEADLINES 14 ACCO ENGINEERING SYSTEMS, INC., (Doc. No. 59) 15 Defendant. 16 17 Pending before the Court is Defendant’s Motion to Continue Trial and Amend Case 18 Management Deadlines, filed October 16, 2024. (Doc. No. 59, “Motion”). In the Motion, 19 Defendant asks the Court to continue by at least 90 days all trial-related deadlines, including the 20 pretrial conference currently scheduled for November 18, 2024, and trial, currently scheduled for 21 January 7, 2025. (Id. at 2). Defendant contends that extending these deadlines pending the 22 Court’s ruling on Defendant’s potentially dispositive Motion for Summary Judgment (“MSJ”) 23 will conserve the parties’ and Court’s resources. (Id.). Plaintiff opposes the Motion. (Id. at 2:17- 24 18). For reasons set forth below, the Court will grant Defendant’s Motion and will stay the 25 remaining case management deadlines pending the Court’s ruling on the MSJ1. 26

27 1 On July 1, 2024, the District Judge assigned the MSJ to the undersigned for preparations of Findings and Recommendations. (Doc. No. 49). The MSJ became ripe on July 23, 2024, after Defendant filed a sur- 28 reply with leave of the Court. (See Doc. No. 58). 1 A federal court enjoys “broad discretion to stay proceedings as an incident to its power to 2 | control its own docket.” Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 706 (1997). For example, magistrate 3 | judges have broad discretion to stay discovery pending decisions on dispositive motions. Panola 4 | Land Buyers Ass’n v. Shuman, 762 F.2d 1550 (11th Cir. 1985); see also Scroggins v. Air Cargo, 5 | Inc., 534 F.2d 1124, 1133 (Sth Cir. 1976). Here, the Court finds that a stay is warranted in the 6 || interests of judicial economy and to preserve the Parties’ time and resources. The Court’s ruling 7 | onthe pending Motion for Summary Judgment may obviate the need for trial preparations, and 8 | therefore the Court finds that all related case management deadlines should be stayed pending the 9 | Court’s decision on the MSJ. 10 Accordingly, it is ORDERED: 11 1. Defendants’ Motion to Continue Trial and Extend Case Management Deadlines (Doc. 12 No. 59) is GRANTED to the extent set forth herein. 13 2. All deadlines in the Court’s Case Management Scheduling Order (Doc. No. 31) are 14 STAYED pending the Court’s ruling on Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment. 15 3. The Court will issue an order on the pending Motion for Summary Judgment in due 16 course. 17 | Dated: _ October 17, 2024 Wh fareh Zaskth 19 HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28