Opinion
1:22-cv-00836 SKO (PC)
07-28-2023
LY TRI, Plaintiff, v. C. GUTIERREZ, et al., Defendants.
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT GUTIERREZ'S MOTION TO STAY THE DEADLINE FOR THE FILING OF A RESPONSIVE PLEADING
(DOC. 17)
SHEILA K. OBERTO, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Plaintiff Ly Tri is proceeding pro se in this civil rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
I. INTRODUCTION
Following service of process on Defendants Gutierrez and McNutt, Defendant McNutt filed a Motion to Dismiss for a lack of subject matter jurisdiction on July 26, 2023. (Doc. 16.) Plaintiff's opposition to the motion is due within 21 days of service of that motion.
On July 27, 2023, Defendant Gutierrez filed a Motion to Stay Responsive Pleading Deadline Pending Court's Ruling on Defendant McNutt's Motion to Dismiss. (Doc. 17.) As to this motion, the Court finds a response from Plaintiff unnecessary.
II. DISCUSSION
Defendant Gutierrez asks this Court to stay the deadline for the filing of his responsive pleading pending the outcome of Defendant McNutt's motion to dismiss. (Doc. 17.) Gutierrez contends that if McNutt's motion is granted, the case will proceed on Plaintiff's First Amendment claim against Gutierrez. (Id. at 3.) Should McNutt's motion be denied, however, staying the deadline for a responsive pleading would promote the interests of judicial economy and avoid duplicity of pleadings. (Id. at 4.) Gutierrez requests the deadline for the filing of a responsive pleading, whether solely as to Gutierrez or jointly as to both Gutierrez and McNutt, be extended to “thirty days from the date of any ruling” on McNutt's pending motion to dismiss. (Id.)
A district court has the inherent power to stay its proceedings. This power to stay is “incidental to the power inherent in every court to control the disposition of the causes on its docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants.” Landis v. North American Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936); see also Federal Sav. & Loan Ins. Corp. v. Molinaro, 889 F.2d 899, 902 (9th Cir. 1989) (“A court may decide to stay the civil case when required by the interests of justice”).
This Court finds a stay of Defendant Gutierrez's deadline for the filing of a responsive pleading, pending the outcome of Defendant McNutt's motion to dismiss, promotes judicial economy and benefits the litigants in this action by avoiding potentially duplicative pleading. Landis, 299 U.S. at 254; see also, e.g., Smith v. Diaz, No. 20-cv-04335-HSG, 2022 WL 827644, at *1 & n.1 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 18, 2022) (certain defendants moved to dismiss prisoner plaintiff's complaint; defendants not a party to the motion granted stay of responsive pleading deadline to allow single answer to be filed); Steadman v. Bassett Furniture Industries, Inc., No. 13cv308 JSH (RBB), 2014 WL 12577587, at *9 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 27, 2014) (defendant's motion to stay deadline to file answer granted to avoid duplicative pleadings while avoiding unnecessary delay following motions to dismiss).
III. CONCLUSION AND ORDER
Accordingly, for the reasons given above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Defendant Gutierrez's motion to stay the responsive pleading deadline (Doc. 17) is GRANTED;
2. The deadline for the filing of a responsive pleading by Defendant Gutierrez is
STAYED pending the outcome of Defendant McNutt's pending motion to dismiss; and
3. Defendant Gutierrez SHALL file a responsive pleading within 30 days of the Court's final resolution of Defendant McNutt's motion to dismiss.
The Court will issue findings and recommendations concerning Defendant McNutt's motion to dismiss following submission of the motion after briefing has concluded and in due course given this Court's heavy caseload.
IT IS SO ORDERED.