Opinion
24-cv-01120-EMC (EMC)
04-05-2024
GEORGE JARVIS AUSTIN, Plaintiffs, v. KEMPER INDEPENDENCE INSURANCE COMPANY (2167877), et al., Defendants.
ORDER STAYING CASE
EDWARD M. CHEN, United States District Judge
The Court may stay proceedings in the interests of judicial efficiency and fairness. Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936) (“[T]he power to stay proceedings is incidental to the power inherent in every court to control disposition of the cases on its docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants.”). Such a stay may be considered sua sponte. See, e.g., Ali v. Trump, 241 F.Supp.3d 1147, 1152 (W.D. Wash. 2017) (citing Fed. Home Loan Mortg. Corp. v. Kama, 2016 WL 922780, at *8-9 (D. Haw. Mar. 9, 2016); S.E.C. v. Chestman, 861 F.2d 49, 50 (2d Cir. 1988)). In evaluating a stay, the Court considers factors enumerated by Landis: (1) hardship from the stay; (2) hardship in going forward; and (3) the orderly course of justice. In consideration of these factors the Court finds a stay pending adjudication of the Defendant's motion to dismiss (Docket No. 19) appropriate. This case is stayed in its entirety until that time. No other motions are to be adjudicated or filed and discovery is stayed until it is determined whether dismissal of Mr. Austin's claims due to inter alia principles of res judicata is appropriate. The Clerk of Court is instructed to vacate hearing dates and other deadlines not associated with Docket No. 19.
IT IS SO ORDERED.