Filed: May 20, 2019
Latest Update: May 20, 2019
Summary: ORDER DOMINIC W. LANZA , District Judge . Pending before the Court is the parties' Joint Motion to Stay Proceedings to Allow for Completion of Settlement (Doc. 5.) The parties aver that they "are in settlement discussions and a stay through July 8, 2019 will allow them to finalize a settlement agreement." (Doc. 5 at 1.) A stay is "not a matter of right," but is rather "an exercise of judicial discretion," the propriety of which "is dependent upon the circumstances of the particular case."
Summary: ORDER DOMINIC W. LANZA , District Judge . Pending before the Court is the parties' Joint Motion to Stay Proceedings to Allow for Completion of Settlement (Doc. 5.) The parties aver that they "are in settlement discussions and a stay through July 8, 2019 will allow them to finalize a settlement agreement." (Doc. 5 at 1.) A stay is "not a matter of right," but is rather "an exercise of judicial discretion," the propriety of which "is dependent upon the circumstances of the particular case." ..
More
ORDER
DOMINIC W. LANZA, District Judge.
Pending before the Court is the parties' Joint Motion to Stay Proceedings to Allow for Completion of Settlement (Doc. 5.) The parties aver that they "are in settlement discussions and a stay through July 8, 2019 will allow them to finalize a settlement agreement." (Doc. 5 at 1.)
A stay is "not a matter of right," but is rather "an exercise of judicial discretion," the propriety of which "is dependent upon the circumstances of the particular case." Virginian Ry. Co. v. United States, 272 U.S. 658, 672-73 (1926). "The party requesting a stay bears the burden of showing that the circumstances justify an exercise of that discretion." Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 433-34 (2009). In the case of a joint motion, the parties share that burden. In determining whether to grant a motion to stay, "the competing interests [that] will be affected by the granting or refusal to grant a stay must be weighed." Lockyer v. Mirant Corp., 398 F.3d 1098, 1110 (9th Cir. 2005) (citing CMAX, Inc. v. Hall, 300 F.2d 265, 268 (9th Cir. 1962)).
The Court "has an interest in managing judicial resources by preventing inactive cases from remaining indefinitely on its docket," United States v. Grantham, 2018 WL 3239938, *2 (S.D. Cal. 2018), and therefore the parties must demonstrate that other factors outweigh this interest to prevail in seeking a stay. Settlement discussions will seldom suffice. The Court follows a general rule of not extending deadlines to allow parties to pursue settlement efforts. See http://www.azd.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/judge-orders/DWL%20Case%20Management%20Order.pdf. Likewise, in most cases, the Court does not consider pursuing settlement discussions to be an adequate justification for a stay.
The joint motion to stay will therefore be denied without prejudice. If the parties have reached a settlement and merely need more time to finalize it, they should file a notice of settlement.1 Alternatively, if the parties believe they have an adequate justification for a stay or a further extension of the briefing schedule, they may file another motion.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that the parties' Joint Motion to Stay Proceedings to Allow for Completion of Settlement (Doc. 5) is denied.
