ORDER RE: MOTION TO STAY

WILLIAM B. SHUBB, District Judge.

Presently before the court is defendants City of Sacramento, Sacramento Police Department, and Samuel D. Somers' Motion to stay the proceeding pending interlocutory appeal.1 (Mot. to Stay (Docket No. 34).) Defendant's Tennis and Lozoya appealed the court's denial of their Motion to dismiss which requested qualified immunity from suit under § 1983. (Notice of Interlocutory Appeal (Docket No. 28).)

A federal court can stay a proceeding pending the outcome of an interlocutory appeal. See Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 421 (2009). The power to stay proceedings "is incidental to the power inherent in every court to control the disposition of the cases on its docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants." Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936). While it is unclear how the Ninth Circuit may rule, "forcing a party to conduct `substantial, unrecoverable, and wasteful' discovery and pretrial motions on matters that could be mooted by a pending appeal may amount to hardship or inequity sufficient to justify a stay." Finder v. Leprino Foods Co., Civ. No. 1:13-2059 AWI BAM, 2017 WL 1355104, at *4 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 20, 2017) (Ishii, J.) (citing Pena v. Taylor Farms Pac., Inc., Civ. No. 2:13-1282 KJM AC, 2015 WL 5103157, at *4 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 31, 2015) (Mueller, J.)).

Accordingly, the court concludes that granting a stay is appropriate.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that defendants' Motion to stay pending appeal (Docket No. 34) be, and the same hereby is, GRANTED. Upon resolution of the pending appeal, counsel shall take the necessary steps to inform the Clerk and arrange to have this matter set for further status conference.