Williams v. San Diego, County of

• Court: District Court, S.D. California
• Decided: November 4, 2019
• Docket: 3:17-cv-00815
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 KATY WILLIAMS; GARY EVANS; and Case No.: 17cv815-MMA (JLB) 11 Minor Plaintiffs A.C., Am.E. and Aa.E., by and through their Guardian Ad Litem, ORDER DENYING JOINT MOTION 12 JOHN GARTER, TO STAY CASE

13 [Doc. No. 142] Plaintiffs, 14 v. 15 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO; and COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO HEALTH 16 AND HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY, 17 Defendants. 18

19 On November 1, 2019, the parties filed a joint motion to stay this action pending a 20 ruling from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in Dees v. County of San Diego, No. 17- 21 56621. See Doc. No. 142. While the Court acknowledges that the issues presented in 22 Dees are substantially similar to those presented in this case, the procedural posture of 23 Dees renders a stay inappropriate. In Dees, the district court granted the plaintiffs’ 24 motion for judgment as a matter of law after the jury rendered a verdict in favor of the 25 defendant. On appeal, the defendant seeks reinstatement of the judgment originally 26 entered in favor of it. 27 Here, the parties are currently engaging in discovery and no motion for summary 28 1 || judgment has been filed. Defendants point out in the joint motion that “the Ninth 2 || Circuit’s decision in Dees may directly impact the issues before this Court[.]” Jd. at 2 3 || (emphasis added). However, the interests of judicial economy do not support a stay 4 || where the Ninth Circuit’s ruling might not impact the issues pending before this Court. 5 || Accordingly, the Court, in its discretion, DENIES the joint motion to stay this action. 6 || See Leyva v. Certified Grocers of Cal., Ltd., 593 F.2d 857, 863-64 (9th Cir. 1979). 7 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. 9 10 || Dated: November 4, 2019 Miku ld _{dillr 12 HON. MICHAEL M. ANELLO B United States District Judge 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28