Sabrina Seher v. Lee Ann Yarbor et al.

W.D. Washington

Sabrina Seher v. Lee Ann Yarbor et al.

DecidedFebruary 11, 2026

Docket2:25-cv-01089

StatusUnknown

This text of Sabrina Seher v. Lee Ann Yarbor et al. (Sabrina Seher v. Lee Ann Yarbor et al.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. Washington primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Sabrina Seher v. Lee Ann Yarbor et al., (W.D. Wash. 2026).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4

5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 9 10 SABRINA SEHER, CASE NO. 2:25-cv-01089-LK 11 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING STIPULATED 12 v. MOTION TO STAY CASE 13 LEE ANN YARBOR et al., 14 Defendants. 15

16 This matter comes before the Court on the parties’ Stipulated Motion to Stay Court 17 Deadlines. Dkt. No. 17. The parties request that the Court stay all deadlines in this case for 45 days 18 “pending a mediation that the Parties are currently scheduling for the second week of March 19 2026.” Id. at 1. For the reasons explained below, the motion is granted. 20 “[T]he power to stay proceedings is incidental to the power inherent in every court to 21 control the disposition of the causes on its docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for 22 counsel, and for litigants.” Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936). The Court “may order 23 a stay of the action pursuant to its power to control its docket and calendar and to provide for a 24 just determination of the cases pending before it.” Leyva v. Certified Grocers of Cal., Ltd., 593 1 F.2d 857, 864 (9th Cir. 1979). In considering whether to grant a stay, courts consider several 2 factors, including “the possible damage which may result,” “the hardship or inequity which a party 3 may suffer in being required to go forward,” and “the orderly course of justice[.]” CMAX, Inc. v. 4 Hall, 300 F.2d 265, 268 (9th Cir. 1962).

5 A stay is appropriate here because the 45-day delay in proceedings will not cause any 6 damage, nor any hardship or inequity to any party, and will promote the orderly course of justice. 7 If the parties resolve this matter through mediation, there will be significant savings of the parties’ 8 and the Court’s resources. The Court thus GRANTS the parties’ motion. Dkt. No. 17. All case 9 deadlines in the Court’s prior order, Dkt. No. 16, are stayed until March 29, 2026. Should the case 10 reach a settlement, the parties must notify the Court in accordance with the Court’s Standing Order 11 for All Civil Cases. See Dkt. No. 6-1 at 3. Otherwise, by March 29, 2026, the parties must file a 12 joint status report with a proposed revised case schedule. 13 14 Dated this 11th day of February, 2026.

15 A 16 Lauren King United States District Judge 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1 2 3 4

5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 9 10 SABRINA SEHER, CASE NO. 2:25-cv-01089-LK 11 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING STIPULATED 12 v. MOTION TO STAY CASE 13 LEE ANN YARBOR et al., 14 Defendants. 15

16 This matter comes before the Court on the parties’ Stipulated Motion to Stay Court 17 Deadlines. Dkt. No. 17. The parties request that the Court stay all deadlines in this case for 45 days 18 “pending a mediation that the Parties are currently scheduling for the second week of March 19 2026.” Id. at 1. For the reasons explained below, the motion is granted. 20 “[T]he power to stay proceedings is incidental to the power inherent in every court to 21 control the disposition of the causes on its docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for 22 counsel, and for litigants.” Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936). The Court “may order 23 a stay of the action pursuant to its power to control its docket and calendar and to provide for a 24 just determination of the cases pending before it.” Leyva v. Certified Grocers of Cal., Ltd., 593 1 F.2d 857, 864 (9th Cir. 1979). In considering whether to grant a stay, courts consider several 2 factors, including “the possible damage which may result,” “the hardship or inequity which a party 3 may suffer in being required to go forward,” and “the orderly course of justice[.]” CMAX, Inc. v. 4 Hall, 300 F.2d 265, 268 (9th Cir. 1962).

5 A stay is appropriate here because the 45-day delay in proceedings will not cause any 6 damage, nor any hardship or inequity to any party, and will promote the orderly course of justice. 7 If the parties resolve this matter through mediation, there will be significant savings of the parties’ 8 and the Court’s resources. The Court thus GRANTS the parties’ motion. Dkt. No. 17. All case 9 deadlines in the Court’s prior order, Dkt. No. 16, are stayed until March 29, 2026. Should the case 10 reach a settlement, the parties must notify the Court in accordance with the Court’s Standing Order 11 for All Civil Cases. See Dkt. No. 6-1 at 3. Otherwise, by March 29, 2026, the parties must file a 12 joint status report with a proposed revised case schedule. 13 14 Dated this 11th day of February, 2026.

15 A 16 Lauren King United States District Judge 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Sabrina Seher v. Lee Ann Yarbor et al., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sabrina-seher-v-lee-ann-yarbor-et-al-wawd-2026.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack