Ross Stibor v. ESA Management, LLC et al.
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- John A. Houston (author)
Analysis
The court considered a joint motion by the plaintiff and defendants to stay all pretrial proceedings pending a ruling on the plaintiff's motion to remand the case to state court. The court granted the motion, ordering all proceedings stayed until the remand motion is resolved.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Joint Motion to Stay Proceedings granted“Accordingly, based on the foregoing, and with good cause appearing, the Court HEREBY GRANTS the Parties’ Joint Motion to Stay Proceedings and ORDERS all proceedings in the above-captioned matter STAYED pending the Court’s ruling on Plaintiff's Motion to Remand.” | agree with court The decision follows from the law and the record recited in the order. The court correctly identifies that a pending motion to remand raises a threshold jurisdictional issue that justifies a stay to avoid unnecessary work. The parties jointly requested the stay, represented that no discovery had yet commenced, and asserted no prejudice, which satisfies the factors for a docket management stay. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It correctly construes the motion, applies the appropriate inherent authority and Ninth Circuit factors for a stay, and relies on the parties' joint representation that no prejudice exists and that the pending remand motion is a threshold jurisdictional issue. The reasoning is concise but sufficient for a joint motion to stay.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ROSS STIBOR, Case No.: 3:25-cv-3787-JAH-JLB 12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING JOINT 13 v. MOTION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS 14 ESA MANAGEMENT, LLC et al., [ECF No. 21] 15 Defendants. 16 Before the Court is Plaintiff Ross Stibor and Defendants ESA Management, LLC 17 and Ryan Miller’s (collectively, the “Parties”) Joint Motion to Vacate the Scheduling Order 18 Regulating Discovery and Other Pre-Trial Proceedings, which the Court will construe as a 19 Joint Motion to Stay Proceedings. See ECF No. 21 (“Motion”); CivLR 7.2. 20 The Parties seek a stay of proceedings, including all upcoming discovery and other 21 pre-trial deadlines, pending this Court’s ruling on Plaintiff’s pending Motion to Remand 22 the Action to State Court. See Mot. at 5, 7.; ECF No. 6 (“Motion to Remand”). 23 Specifically, the Parties seek to stay the following pretrial deadlines outlined in the 24 modified Scheduling Order: 25 • July 14, 2026: Deadline to serve written discovery requests; 26 • September 8, 2026: Completion of fact discovery; 27 • October 6, 2026: Deadline to designate experts in writing; 28 1 • October 20, 2026: Deadline to exchange rebuttal experts; 2 • November 17, 2026: Deadline for expert disclosure; 3 • December 1, 2026: Deadline to supplement expert disclosure regarding 4 contradictory or rebuttal evidence; 5 • December 29, 2026: Completion of expert discovery; 6 • January 25, 2027: Mandatory Settlement Conference; 7 • February 2, 2027: Deadline to file pretrial motions; and, 8 • June 16, 2027: Final Pretrial Conference. 9 See Mot. at 5; ECF No. 19 (“Scheduling Order”). The Parties represent they have not yet 10 commenced discovery pending the ruling on the Motion for Remand in order to “preserve 11 costs, avoid potential conflicts between state and federal discovery, and avoid the 12 expenditure of resources on discovery that may prove unnecessary if the case is remanded.” 13 Mot. at 7. They also represent that no party is prejudiced by a stay of proceedings. Id. 14 DISCUSSION 15 A district court possesses the inherent authority to control its docket and stay 16 proceedings to promote “economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for 17 litigants.” Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936). There are “three non-exclusive 18 factors courts must weigh when deciding whether to issue a docket management stay: (1) 19 ‘the possible damage which may result from the granting of a stay’; (2) ‘the hardship or 20 inequity which a party may suffer in being required to go forward’; and (3) ‘the orderly 21 course of justice measured in terms of the simplifying or complicating of issues, proof, and 22 questions of law.’” In re PG&E Corp. Sec. Litig., 100 F.4th 1076, 1085 (9th Cir. 2024). 23 Here, the Court agrees with the Parties that Plaintiff’s pending Motion to Remand 24 raises a threshold jurisdictional question as to whether this Court has subject-matter 25 jurisdiction over the action, and that such issues must be resolved before the Parties can 26 meaningfully proceed with discovery or other pretrial proceedings. See id. at 1086 (“A 27 district court may stay a case ‘pending resolution of independent proceedings which bear 28 upon the case[.]’”) (citing Leyva v. Cert. Grocers of Cal., Ltd., 593 F.2d 857 (9th Cir. 1 1979)). The Court also agrees that there is no risk of prejudice or hardship to any of the 2 || Parties, including because the Parties have not yet begun discovery and jointly agree that a 3 || stay is appropriate. 4 Accordingly, based on the foregoing, and with good cause appearing, the Court 5 || HEREBY GRANTS the Parties’ Joint Motion to Stay Proceedings and ORDERS all 6 || proceedings in the above-captioned matter STAYED pending the Court’s ruling on 7 Plaintiff's Motion to Remand. If Plaintiff's Motion to Remand is denied, new dates will 8 || be set by further order of the Court. 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. 10 || DATED: July 13, 2026 el kL Wasa == 11 JOHN A. HOUSTON JONITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28