Bryan Kominiak v. County of San Diego, et al.
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Linda Lopez (author)
Analysis
The County of San Diego moved to stay proceedings for 90 days because its lead counsel, a U.S. Navy reservist, was activated for military duty. The court denied the motion without prejudice, finding no good cause for the delay despite acknowledging the court's broad discretion and sympathy for the counsel's situation.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Motion for Stay of Proceedings Denied“The Motion is therefore DENIED without prejudice this procedural posture.” | unsure The court correctly identified that it has broad discretion to manage its docket and stay cases. However, the order fails to articulate the specific factors considered in exercising that discretion (such as the prejudice to the plaintiff, the availability of substitute counsel, or the specific impact on the litigation schedule). While denying a stay for a short period of counsel's unavailability is a common exercise of discretion, the lack of reasoning makes it difficult to verify if the decision was legally sound based on the record provided. |
The order itself: sound with gaps — The order cites the correct standard of review (broad discretion) but provides no substantive analysis of why the specific facts (counsel's military activation) do not constitute good cause. It does not address whether the defendants could retain substitute counsel or how the stay would prejudice the plaintiff. The reasoning is conclusory.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
inconsistent with cited authorityOpinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 BRYAN KOMINIAK, Case No.: 25cv3113-LL-DEB 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 13 v. STAY OF PROCEEDINGS 14 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, ET AL., [ECF No. 12] 15 Defendants. 16 17 Pending before the Court is Defendant County of San Diego’s Motion for Stay of 18 Proceedings. ECF No. 12. Defendant County of San Diego requests a stay of all 19 proceedings by ninety (90) days because “lead counsel for Defendants Ronald Lenert is an 20 active duty U.S. Navy reservist and has received military orders that will make him unable 21 to work on County matters from April 13, 2026 to May 27, 2026.” Id. at 1. Accordingly, 22 Defendants ask the Court to stay all proceedings in this litigation by ninety (90) days, until 23 June 15, 2026. Id. at 2. 24 The Court has broad discretion when it comes to managing its docket and 25 determining whether to stay a case. Dependable Highway Express, Inc. v. Navigators Ins. 26 Co., 498 F.3d 1059, 1066 (9th Cir. 2007). While the Court is sympathetic to Defendants’ 27 counsel, Mr. Lenert’s responsibilities as a U.S. Navy reservist, the Court does not find good 28 1 || cause to delay the case as requested. The Motion is therefore DENIED without prejudice 2 this procedural posture. 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 4 || Dated: March 24, 2026 NO 5 Je J 6 Honorable Linda Lopez 5 United States District Judge 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28