Jose Ruiz, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. The Bradford Exchange, Ltd., an Illinois corporation; and Does 1–50, inclusive
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- William Q. Hayes (author)
Analysis
The court lifted the stay of proceedings following the Supreme Court's denial of a petition for a writ of certiorari. The court also adopted the deadlines proposed in the parties' Joint Status Report, including a deadline for the defendant to file a waiver of the adequate-remedy-at-law defense.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Stay of proceedings lifted“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the stay of this action is lifted.” | agree with court The stay was originally entered pending the disposition of the petition for a writ of certiorari. Since the Supreme Court denied the petition, the condition for the stay has been satisfied, and lifting the stay is the correct procedural step. |
Deadlines adopted from Joint Status Report“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED the Court adopts the deadlines proposed in the Joint Status Report (ECF No. 26).” | agree with court Courts routinely adopt scheduling deadlines proposed by parties in joint status reports to manage the docket. The order explicitly states the adoption of these deadlines. |
Defendant ordered to file waiver of adequate-remedy-at-law defense“Defendant shall file a waiver of the adequate-remedy-at-law defense no later than May 15, 2026.” | unsure The order recites that this deadline was proposed in the Joint Status Report. While the order does not detail the legal basis for requiring a waiver of this specific defense (likely related to the class action certification issues remanded by the Ninth Circuit), it is presented as part of the agreed-upon schedule. |
The order itself: sound — The order is a procedural scheduling order that correctly lifts a stay based on the denial of certiorari and adopts party-proposed deadlines. It does not address substantive legal issues.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 JOSE RUIZ, individually and on behalf of Case No.: 3:23-cv-01800-WQH-KSC all others similarly situated, 11 ORDER Plaintiff, 12 v. 13 THE BRADFORD EXCHANGE, 14 LTD., an Illinois corporation; and 15 DOES 1–50, inclusive, 16 Defendants. 17 HAYES, Judge: 18 On August 28, 2025, the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit entered an Order 19 (ECF No. 17-1) in this case vacating the Order entered on May 16, 2024 (ECF No. 11) and 20 remanding the case to this Court. Ruiz v. The Bradford Exchange, Ltd., 153 F.4th 907 (9th 21 Cir. 2025). On January 12, 2026, this Court issued an Order spreading the Ninth Circuit’s 22 mandate. (ECF No. 18.) 23 On February 9, 2026, the Court issued an Order staying the proceedings pending the 24 disposition of the petition for a writ of certiorari filed by Plaintiff Jose Ruiz (“Plaintiff”) in 25 the United States Supreme Court. (ECF No. 21.) 26 On April 27, 2026, the Supreme Court denied Plaintiff’s petition. (ECF No. 25.) 27 28 On May 4, 2026, Plaintiff and Defendant The Bradford Exchange, Ltd. 2 || (“Defendant”) filed a Joint Status Report informing the Court of the denial of certiorari and 3 || proposing deadlines in this case. (ECF No. 26.) 4 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the stay of this action is lifted. 5 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED the Court adopts the deadlines proposed in the Joint 6 || Status Report (ECF No. 26). Defendant shall file a waiver of the adequate-remedy-at-law 7 || defense no later than May 15, 2026. Defendant shall respond to the Complaint no later than 8 || June 29, 2026. 9 10 Dated: May 11, 2026 4 Lttn~ Z. Ma 1 Hon. William Q. Hayes United States District Court 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28