Spikes v. Arabo
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- On appeal
- Karel Spikes v. Usdc-Casd (2020-12-09) — other — the Ninth Circuit's later ruling on this docket
- Panel
- Thomas J. Whelan (author)
Analysis
Plaintiff Karel Spikes filed an ex parte motion to stay the lawsuit to allow his disqualified counsel to seek a writ of mandamus in the Ninth Circuit. The court granted the motion and ordered the matter stayed for the limited purpose of permitting that specific action.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Granting Plaintiff's ex parte motion to stay the lawsuit“In consideration of these interests, the Court GRANTS the ex parte motion [Doc. /21] and ORDERS this matter STAYED for the limited purpose of permitting Mr. Bentley to represent Plaintiff in seeking a writ from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.” | agree with court The court applied the correct legal standard for a stay pending a writ of mandamus, citing the broad discretion afforded to district courts and the specific factors from CMAX, Inc. v. Hall. The decision to stay the case to allow for the filing of a mandamus petition regarding the disqualification of counsel is a defensible exercise of discretion, as the harm of disqualification is often irreparable on ordinary appeal, and a limited stay promotes the orderly course of justice by resolving the jurisdictional/representation issue first. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly identifies the relevant legal standards for a stay pending a mandamus petition and applies the CMAX factors. It explicitly limits the stay to the purpose of seeking the writ, which is a prudent and legally sound approach that balances the plaintiff's need to challenge the disqualification with the court's interest in moving the case forward. The reasoning is concise but sufficient for this procedural matter.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 11 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 12 13 KAREL SPIKES. Case No.: 19-CV-001594 W (MDD) 14 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S 15 v. MOTION TO STAY [DOC. 21] 16 RENAE M. ARABO, et al., 17 Defendants. 18 19 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff Karel Spikes’ ex parte motion to stay this 20 lawsuit to allow for a writ of mandamus to be filed with the Ninth Circuit Court of 21 Appeals in connection with this Court’s affirmation of Magistrate Judge Dembin’s order 22 disqualifying Plaintiff’s counsel. Defendants oppose the ex parte motion. [Doc. 23.] 23 “A writ of mandamus may be used to review the disqualification of counsel by a 24 district court because the harm of such disqualification cannot be corrected with an 25 ordinary appeal.” Cole v. U.S. Dist. Court For Dist. of Idaho, 366 F.3d 813 (9th Cir. 26 2004). However, filing a writ of mandamus does not automatically stay proceedings in 27 the district court. Filtrol Corp. v. Kelleher, 467 F.2d 242, 244 (9th Cir. 1972). Rather, 28 the court has broad discretion to decide whether a stay is appropriate to “promote 1 ||economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants.” Id. The court must 2 ||exercise sound discretion in exercising this power, weighing competing interests, 3 including: (1) the damage that may result from a stay; (2) the hardship or inequities that 4 ||may result from allowing the case to go forward; and (3) how granting or denying a stay 5 ||may affect the orderly course of justice, including “simplifying or complicating of issues, 6 || proof, and questions of law which could be expected to result from a stay.” CMAX, Inc. 7 || v. Hall, 300 F.2d 265, 268 (9th Cir. 1962) (citations omitted). 8 In consideration of these interests, the Court GRANTS the ex parte motion [Doc. 9 |/21] and ORDERS this matter STAYED for the limited purpose of permitting Mr. 10 || Bentley to represent Plaintiff in seeking a writ from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. 11 || Within seven (7) days of the date the Court of Appeals issues a decision on Plaintiff's 12 || pending petition for writ of mandamus, the parties will contact the Magistrate Judge’s 13 ||Chambers to schedule a status conference. 14 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. 16 ||Dated: May 22, 2020 \ 17 [ihe uDon 18 Hn. 1 omas J. Whelan United States District Judge 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Cites, in this corpus
- Cmax, Inc. v. Hall No. 17517 · 1962-03-19