D.C. v. County of San Diego
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Michael M. Anello (author)
Analysis
The parties jointly moved to stay the action pending the resolution of the plaintiff's petition for a writ of certiorari regarding the denial of class certification. The court granted the motion and stayed the action, ordering the parties to submit a joint status report within five days of the petition's resolution.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Grant of Joint Motion to Stay Action“Weighing the competing interests, the Court GRANTS the parties’ joint motion and STAYS this action pending a resolution of Plaintiff’s Petition.” | agree with court The decision follows from the law and the record recited in the order. The order cites the Ninth Circuit precedent establishing that district courts have discretionary power to stay proceedings and that they weigh competing interests in doing so. Since the motion was joint, the court's exercise of discretion to grant the stay is consistent with the cited authority and the procedural posture. |
Order to Submit Joint Status Report“The Court ORDERS that the parties submit a joint status report within 5 days of the Petition’s resolution.” | agree with court This is a standard procedural directive accompanying a stay to ensure the court remains informed of the status of the pending Supreme Court petition. It is a reasonable exercise of the court's case management authority. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It correctly identifies the relevant standard (discretionary power to stay) and the specific test (weighing competing interests) from binding Ninth Circuit authority. The application of this standard to a joint motion is straightforward and the result is defensible. The order is concise but contains all necessary elements for a stay order.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 D.C., a minor by and through his Case No. 15-cv-1868-MMA (NLS) Guardian Ad Litem, HELEN GARTER, 12 on behalf of himself and all others ORDER GRANTING JOINT 13 similarly situated, MOTION TO STAY ACTION PENDING RESOLUTION OF 14 Plaintiff, PLAINTIFF’S PETITION FOR 15 v. WRIT OF CERTIORARI 16 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO; JESSIE [Doc. No. 96] POLINSKY CHILDREN'S CENTER; and 17 SAN DIEGO COUNTY HEALTH AND 18 HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY, 19 Defendants. 20 21 The parties jointly move to stay this action pending a resolution of Plaintiff’s 22 forthcoming Petition to the United States Supreme Court for a Writ of Certiorari of this 23 Court’s order denying class certification (“Petition”). See Doc. No. 96. Weighing the 24 competing interests, the Court GRANTS the parties’ joint motion and STAYS this action 25 pending a resolution of Plaintiff’s Petition. See Lockyer v. Mirant Corp., 398 F.3d 1098, 26 1109 (9th Cir. 2005) (“A district court has discretionary power to stay proceedings in its 27 own court . . . .”); id. at 1110 (listing the “competing interests” weighed when deciding 28 1 ||whether to issue a stay). The Court ORDERS that the parties submit a joint status report 2 within 5 days of the Petition’s resolution. 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 4 5 ||Dated: April 2, 2020 6 7 Maku lu (lilt HON. MICHAEL M. ANELLO 8 United States District Judge 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28