Shachno v. Marriott International, INC.

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MATTHEW SHACHNO, an individual, Case No.: 22-CV-1215 TWR (JLB) on behalf of himself and all persons 12 similarly situated, ORDER GRANTING JOINT 13 MOTION TO STAY CASE Plaintiff,

14 v. (ECF No. 54) 15 MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL, INC., a 16 corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, 17 Defendants. 18 19 Presently before the Court is the Plaintiff Matthew Shachno and Defendant Marriott 20 International, Inc.’s Joint Motion to Stay Case Pending June 8, 2023 Mediation. (ECF No. 21 54, “Mot.”) “[T]he power to stay proceedings is incidental to the power inherent in every 22 court to control the disposition of the causes on its docket with economy of time and effort 23 for itself, for counsel, and for litigants.” Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936). 24 In determining whether to issue a stay, the court must consider the “possible damage which 25 may result from the granting of a stay, the hardship or inequity which a party may suffer 26 in being required to go forward, and the orderly course of justice measured in terms of the 27 simplifying or complicating of issues, proof, and questions of law which could be expected 28 to result from a stay.” CMAX, Inc. v. Hall, 300 F.2d 265, 268 (9th Cir. 1962). 1 Here, the Parties seek a stay of this action and all pending deadlines because they 2 ||“are attending a private mediation on June 8, 2023 for potential resolution of both this 3 ||action and its companion state-court Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA’) action.” 4 ||(Mot. at 3.) The Parties assert that a stay is justified for the foregoing reasons: 5 (i) it will allow the Parties to avoid further burdensome and costly class 6 discovery; (i1) it will stay (and potentially avoid) all pending discovery disputes between the Parties, which this Court has had to (and will continue 7 to) referee through informal discovery conferences; (111) 1t may avoid g discovery motion practice; (iv) it will stay (and potentially avoid) other motion practice (e.g., Defendant’s Motion for Sanctions, Plaintiffs class 9 certification motion, Defendant’s summary judgment motion, etc.) — all of 10 which this Court would have to analyze and rule on; and (v) it will allow the Parties to focus their attention on potential resolution. 11 |}(Mot. at 4-5.) Good cause appearing, the Court GRANTS the Parties’ Joint Motion. 12 || Accordingly, the Court STAYS this action pending the mediation on June 8, 2023. 13 Pursuant to the Joint Motion, the Parties SHALL FILE a joint status report on or before 14 || June 29, 2023. 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. 16 ||Dated: April 18, 2023 —— (2 17 59) \ D be 18 Honorable Todd W. Robinson 19 United States District Judge 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

sy