Anthony Strong, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Watkins Wellness LLC and Watkins Manufacturing Corp.
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Barry T. Moskowitz (author)
Analysis
The parties filed a joint motion to stay the case pending the finalization of a settlement agreement that resolves the plaintiff's individual claims. The court granted the motion, staying all deadlines until September 9, 2026, and ordered the plaintiff to file a dismissal by that date.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Grant of Joint Motion to Stay Case Pending Final Settlement“this Court hereby GRANTS the motion.” | agree with court The court applied the inherent authority to manage its docket, a standard recognized in the Ninth Circuit. The findings of no prejudice, hardship if litigation continued, and promotion of judicial efficiency support the grant of a short-term stay to finalize a settlement. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly identifies the source of the court's power (inherent docket management) and cites a recent Ninth Circuit case supporting that authority. The court provides specific findings regarding prejudice, hardship, and judicial efficiency, which are the typical factors considered when granting a stay. The result is defensible and follows from the cited law.
Opinion
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 ANTHONY STRONG, individually and Case No. 3:26-cv-01896-BTM-SBC 11 on behalf of all others similarly situated, ORDER GRANTING JOINT 12 Plaintiff, MOTION TO STAY CASE PENDING FINAL SETTLEMENT 13 v. [ECF No. 21] 14 WATKINS WELLNESS LLC and WATKINS MANUFACTURING CORP. 15 Defendants. 16 17 Before the Court is the Parties’ Joint Motion to Stay Case Pending Final 18 Settlement (ECF No. 21), in which the Parties advised the Court that they have 19 reached an agreement in principle that would resolve the Plaintiff’s individual 20 claims and would have no impact on any potential class claims. Having considered 21 the Joint Motion, and good cause having been shown, the Court FINDS that: 22 (1) neither Party will be prejudiced by, or suffer possible damage as a result 23 from the granting of the requested stay; 24 (2) the Parties will suffer hardship and inequity if required to draft and file 25 pleadings and otherwise participate in this litigation, which will be finally resolved 26 in a short period of time; and 27 (3) granting a brief stay will promote judicial efficiency by saving court 1 | resources and calendar time for other cases that have not reached a resolution. 2 Accordingly, and pursuant to this Court’s “inherent authority to stay federal 3| proceedings pursuant to its docket management powers,” Ernest Bock, LLC v. Steelman, 76 F.4th 827, 842 (9th Cir. 2023), this Court hereby GRANTS the motion. 5 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT this case and all deadlines are STAYED 6| until September 9, 2026, and unless the Parties submit a motion requesting further 7| relief, that the Plaintiff shall file a dismissal of this case on or before that date. 8| ITISSO ORDERED. 9 10 Dated: August 12, 2026 Tid) Jisek 11 Honore Barry Ted wh nak 12 United States District Judge 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27