Washington State Medical Association v. Kennedy

W.D. Washington

Washington State Medical Association v. Kennedy

DecidedAugust 15, 2025

Docket2:25-cv-00955

StatusUnknown

This text of Washington State Medical Association v. Kennedy (Washington State Medical Association v. Kennedy) 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

Washington State Medical Association v. Kennedy, (W.D. Wash. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4

5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 9 10 WASHINGTON STATE MEDICAL CASE NO. 2:25-cv-00955-LK 11 ASSOCIATION et al., ORDER GRANTING STIPULATED 12 Plaintiffs, MOTION TO STAY v. PROCEEDINGS 13 ROBERT F. KENNEDY, JR. et al., 14 Defendants. 15 16 This matter comes before the Court on the parties’ stipulated motion to stay all proceedings 17 in this matter. Dkt. No. 17. The parties ask that all briefing deadlines, including those associated 18 with dispositive cross-motions, Dkt. No. 13, be stayed for a period of 45 days because “[t]he parties 19 have reached an agreement in principle to resolve this matter, and a stay will allow the settlement 20 to be finalized and implemented.” Dkt. No. 17 at 2. For the reasons explained below, the motion 21 is granted. 22 “[T]he power to stay proceedings is incidental to the power inherent in every court to 23 control the disposition of the causes on its docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for 24 1 counsel, and for litigants.” Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936). The Court “may order 2 a stay of the action pursuant to its power to control its docket and calendar and to provide for a 3 just determination of the cases pending before it.” Leyva v. Certified Grocers of Cal., Ltd., 593 4 F.2d 857, 864 (9th Cir. 1979). In considering whether to grant a stay, courts consider several

5 factors, including “the possible damage which may result,” “the hardship or inequity which a party 6 may suffer in being required to go forward,” and “the orderly course of justice[.]” CMAX, Inc. v. 7 Hall, 300 F.2d 265, 268 (9th Cir. 1962). A stay is appropriate here because a resolution would 8 moot the need for the parties to file their dispositive cross-motions. A stay will not cause any 9 damage, nor any hardship or inequity to any party, and will promote the orderly course of justice. 10 The Court thus GRANTS the parties’ motion. Dkt. No. 17. All upcoming case deadlines in 11 the Court’s briefing schedule, Dkt. No. 13, are stayed for 45 days. The parties must notify the 12 Court once the settlement is finalized pursuant to the Court’s Standing Order for All Civil Cases. 13 Dkt. No. 4-1. Otherwise, at the conclusion of the 45-day period, the parties must file a joint status 14 report.

15 Dated this 15th day of August, 2025. 16 A 17 Lauren King United States District Judge 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 WASHINGTON STATE MEDICAL CASE NO. 2:25-cv-00955-LK 11 ASSOCIATION et al., ORDER GRANTING STIPULATED 12 Plaintiffs, MOTION TO STAY v. PROCEEDINGS 13 ROBERT F. KENNEDY, JR. et al., 14 Defendants. 15 16 This matter comes before the Court on the parties’ stipulated motion to stay all proceedings 17 in this matter. Dkt. No. 17. The parties ask that all briefing deadlines, including those associated 18 with dispositive cross-motions, Dkt. No. 13, be stayed for a period of 45 days because “[t]he parties 19 have reached an agreement in principle to resolve this matter, and a stay will allow the settlement 20 to be finalized and implemented.” Dkt. No. 17 at 2. For the reasons explained below, the motion 21 is granted. 22 “[T]he power to stay proceedings is incidental to the power inherent in every court to 23 control the disposition of the causes on its docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for 24 1 counsel, and for litigants.” Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936). The Court “may order 2 a stay of the action pursuant to its power to control its docket and calendar and to provide for a 3 just determination of the cases pending before it.” Leyva v. Certified Grocers of Cal., Ltd., 593 4 F.2d 857, 864 (9th Cir. 1979). In considering whether to grant a stay, courts consider several

5 factors, including “the possible damage which may result,” “the hardship or inequity which a party 6 may suffer in being required to go forward,” and “the orderly course of justice[.]” CMAX, Inc. v. 7 Hall, 300 F.2d 265, 268 (9th Cir. 1962). A stay is appropriate here because a resolution would 8 moot the need for the parties to file their dispositive cross-motions. A stay will not cause any 9 damage, nor any hardship or inequity to any party, and will promote the orderly course of justice. 10 The Court thus GRANTS the parties’ motion. Dkt. No. 17. All upcoming case deadlines in 11 the Court’s briefing schedule, Dkt. No. 13, are stayed for 45 days. The parties must notify the 12 Court once the settlement is finalized pursuant to the Court’s Standing Order for All Civil Cases. 13 Dkt. No. 4-1. Otherwise, at the conclusion of the 45-day period, the parties must file a joint status 14 report.

15 Dated this 15th day of August, 2025. 16 A 17 Lauren King United States District Judge 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Washington State Medical Association v. Kennedy, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/washington-state-medical-association-v-kennedy-wawd-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack