Ramirez v. The Control Group Media Company, LLC
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Michael M. Anello (author)
Analysis
The court considered a joint motion filed by the plaintiff and defendants to stay proceedings to allow for mediation. The court granted the motion, vacated all pending deadlines, and stayed the action pending the completion of mediation.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Grant joint motion to stay proceedings“Accordingly, upon due consideration, good cause appearing, the Court GRANTS the joint motion, VACATES all pending deadlines and hearing dates, and STAYS this action in its entirety pending the completion of mediation.” | agree with court The court correctly applied the inherent authority to control the docket and the balancing test for stays. The factors cited (no scheduling order issued, joint motion, conservation of resources, no inequity) support the decision to stay the case for mediation. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally correct and relies on the appropriate binding authorities for the Ninth Circuit and the Supreme Court regarding the inherent power to stay proceedings. The application of the factors is logical given the joint nature of the motion and the early stage of the litigation.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 11 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 12 13 ROGELIO RAMIREZ, on behalf of Case No. 22-cv-1128-MMA (MDD) himself and all others similarly situated, 14 ORDER GRANTING JOINT Plaintiff, 15 MOTION TO STAY v. 16 [Doc. No. 20] THE CONTROL GROUP MEDIA 17 COMPANY, LLC, et al., 18 Defendants. 19 20 21 On November 2, 2022, Plaintiff Rogelio Ramirez and Defendants The Control 22 Group Media Company LLC, PeopleConnect, Inc., Instant Checkmate, LLC, 23 TruthFinder, LLC, and Intelius LLC (collectively, the “Parties”) filed a joint motion to 24 stay proceedings to allow the Parties to further mediate. See Doc. No. 20. The Parties 25 have agreed to mediate this case. Id. at 2. The mediation is scheduled to begin on 26 December 6, 2022. Id. 27 A trial court has inherent authority to control its own docket and calendar, 28 including the issuance of a stay. Landis v. North American Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 1 ||(1936). When ruling on a motion to stay, the Court considers “the competing interests 2 || which will be affected by the granting or refusal to grant a stay[,]” including “the possible 3 ||damage which may result from the granting of the stay, the hardship or inequity which a 4 || party may suffer in being required to go forward, and the orderly course of justice 5 measured in terms of the simplifying or complicating of issues, proof, and questions of 6 || law which could be expected to result from a stay.” CMAX, Inc. v. Hall, 300 F.2d 265, 7 (9th Cir. 1962) (citing Landis, 299 U.S. at 254-55). 8 Here, the factors weigh in favor of a stay of proceedings. The Court has not yet 9 issued a Rule 16 scheduling order setting forth discovery and pretrial deadlines. All 10 || Parties have joined in the motion to stay. See Doc. No. 20. Additionally, a brief stay in 11 case will conserve judicial resources, the resources of the Parties, and will not impose 12 inequity on any party. See CMAX, Inc., 300 F.2d at 268; Landis, 299 U.S. at 254-55. 13 Accordingly, upon due consideration, good cause appearing, the Court GRANTS 14 || the joint motion, VACATES all pending deadlines and hearing dates, and STAYS this 15 || action in its entirety pending the completion of mediation. The parties must file with the 16 || Court a joint status report by December 30, 2022. 17 IT IS SO ORDERED. 18 Dated: November 7, 2022 19 pt ball Da /hipllr 20 HON. MICHAEL M. ANELLO 1 United States District Judge 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Cites, in this corpus
- Cmax, Inc. v. Hall No. 17517 · 1962-03-19