Kennedy v. El Centro Regional Medical Center

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 VICTORIA KENNEDY, on behalf of Case No.: 22-CV-1522 JLS (LR) herself and all others similarly situated, 12 ORDER GRANTING JOINT Plaintiff, 13 STIPULATION TO COMPLETE v. STAY OF CASE PENDING FINAL 14 SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT EL CENTRO REGIONAL MEDICAL 15 CENTER, a municipal hospital; and (ECF No. 15) 16 DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, 17 Defendants. 18 19 20 21 22 Presently before the Court is the Parties’ Joint Stipulation to Complete Stay of Case 23 Pending Final Settlement Agreement (“Joint Stip.,” ECF No. 15). In its previous Order 24 (“Order,” ECF No. 14), the Court stayed this case until December 5, 2023, to allow the 25 Parties to prepare for and attend private mediation. The Parties have now completed 26 mediation and reached a “settlement in principle.” Joint Stip. at 2. They therefore seek to 27 stay this action for another forty-five days so that they may “finaliz[e] a long form 28 settlement agreement.” Id. 1 The Parties specifically request that the Court stay Plaintiff’s deadline to file an 2 amended complaint. Id. They explain that if Plaintiff files said amended complaint, 3 Defendant will need to dedicate resources to responding that are better spent finalizing the 4 Parties’ settlement agreement. Id. 5 The Ninth Circuit described the factors that a district court must consider when 6 determining whether to grant a stay in CMAX, Inc. v. Hall: 7 A district court has inherent power to control the disposition of the causes on its docket in a manner which will 8 promote economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and 9 for litigants. The exertion of this power calls for the exercise of a sound discretion. Where it is proposed that a pending 10 proceeding be stayed, the competing interests which will be 11 affected by the granting or refusal to grant a stay must be weighed. Among these competing interests are the possible 12 damage which may result from the granting of a stay, the 13 hardship or inequity which a party may suffer in being required to go forward, and the orderly course of justice measured in terms 14 of the simplifying or complicating of issues, proof, and questions 15 of law which could be expected to result from a stay. 16 300 F.2d 265, 268 (9th Cir. 1962). 17 The first factor—possible damage—counsels against a stay. True, both named 18 Parties seek to stay these proceedings. Joint Stip. at 2. But per the operative Complaint, 19 Plaintiff seeks to certify a collective action under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act 20 (“FLSA”). See Notice Removal Ex. B. (“Second Am. Compl.”) at 18–19, ECF No. 1-4. 21 Delay in this case not only impacts the named plaintiff, but also harms those who might 22 seek to join Plaintiff’s collective action should it be certified. And the risk of such third- 23 party harm is significant. The Ninth Circuit has recognized that the FLSA creates an 24 “urgent . . . statutory right to minimum compensation.” Leyva v. Certified Grocers of Cal., 25 Ltd., 593 F.2d 857, 864 (9th Cir. 1979). Because the FLSA reflects the “strong 26 congressional policy favoring prompt payment of wages,” the Ninth Circuit has cautioned 27 that district courts granting stays in FLSA cases should seek “satisfactory assurances” that 28 the parties are “proceeding with diligence and efficiency.” See id. 1 The other two CMAX factors, however, outweigh the first. Requiring the Parties to 2 ||incur further litigation costs in a case that is likely to settle imposes unnecessary hardship. 3 ||Moreover, enabling the Parties to finalize their settlement will obviate the need for the 4 ||Parties to conduct resource-intensive litigation of issues such as the sufficiency of 5 || Plaintiff's amended complaint. As the Parties seek only forty-five additional days to 6 ||finalize their settlement, the Court is persuaded that the benefits associated with the 7 requested stay outweigh potential delay-related harm to third parties. 8 For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS the Parties’ Joint Stipulation. The 9 || Court therefore (1) STAYS this action until January 19, 2024, (2) CONTINUES □□□□□□□□□□ 10 || deadline to file an amended complaint until that same date, and (3) VACATES the Parties 11 December 12, 2023 deadline to file a joint status report. If the Parties do not file documents 12 || to effect the settlement of this matter by January 19, 2024, however, the Parties SHALL 13 FILE a joint status report (1) demonstrating that—despite their failure to reach an 14 || agreement—they have proceeded diligently and efficiently over the course of the Court’s 15 and (2) proposing appropriate next steps. 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. 17 ||Dated: December 11, 2023 tt 18 pen Janis L. Sammartino 19 United States District Judge 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28