Spencer v. Empire Today LLC

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: September 29, 2025
• Docket: 2:25-cv-01661
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4

5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 9 10 SHANNON SPENCER, CASE NO. 2:25-cv-01661-LK 11 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING STIPULATED 12 v. MOTION TO STAY 13 EMPIRE TODAY, LLC, 14 Defendant. 15

16 This matter comes before the Court on the parties’ stipulated motion to stay this case. Dkt. 17 No. 13. The parties request that this Court “stay this action, including all pending deadlines, 18 Defendants’ pending motion to compel arbitration and Plaintiff’s deadline to file his remand 19 motion, for 45 days to allow the Parties an opportunity to explore early resolution.” Id. at 1. 20 The parties state that a “stay of this case would promote efficiency for the Parties and the 21 Court.” Id. They propose to file a joint status report 55 days from the entry of an order staying the 22 case apprising the Court of the status of the matter and, if the matter is not resolved, providing a 23 briefing schedule on Defendant’s pending motion to compel arbitration. Id. 24 1 “[T]he power to stay proceedings is incidental to the power inherent in every court to 2 control the disposition of the causes on its docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for 3 counsel, and for litigants.” Landis v. North Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936). The Court “may 4 order a stay of the action pursuant to its power to control its docket and calendar and to provide

5 for a just determination of the cases pending before it.” Leyva v. Certified Grocers of Cal., Ltd., 6 593 F.2d 857, 864 (9th Cir. 1979). In considering whether to grant a stay, courts consider several 7 factors, including: 8 the possible damage which may result from the granting of a stay, the hardship or inequity which a party may suffer in being required to go forward, and the orderly 9 course of justice measured in terms of the simplifying or complicating of issues, proof, and questions of law which could be expected to result from a stay. 10 CMAX, Inc. v. Hall, 300 F.2d 265, 268 (9th Cir. 1962). Here, it does not appear that any damage, 11 hardship, or inequity will result from the requested stay or that any questions of law will arise as a 12 result. In addition, granting a stay will promote the orderly course of justice and preserve the 13 parties’ and the Court’s resources. 14 For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS the parties’ stipulated motion to stay this 15 case, Dkt. No. 13, STAYS this case until November 17, 2025 and extends Plaintiff’s deadline to 16 file a motion to remand to that date, REMOVES the pending motion to compel arbitration (Dkt. 17 No. 8) from the motions calendar, and ORDERS the parties to submit a joint status report on or 18 before November 25, 2025 apprising the Court of the status of the matter and, if the matter is not 19 resolved, proposing a briefing schedule for Defendant’s motion to compel arbitration. 20 Dated this 29th day of September, 2025. 21 A 22 Lauren King 23 United States District Judge