From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Tyrrel v. Union Pacific Railroad Co.

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, E.D. California, Sacramento Division
Dec 31, 2015
2:15-cv-02048-JAM-KJN (E.D. Cal. Dec. 31, 2015)

Opinion


BONNIE TYRREL, Plaintiff, v. UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants. No. 2:15-cv-02048-JAM-KJN United States District Court, E.D. California, Sacramento Division. December 31, 2015

          SECOND JOINT STIPULATION AND ORDER TO STAY PROCEEDINGS FOR THIRTY DAYS

          JOHN A. MENDEZ, District Judge.

         Plaintiff Bonnie Tyrrel and Defendant Union Pacific Railroad Company, hereby request and jointly stipulate to a second stay of all proceedings in this case for an additional period of thirty (30) days.

         Recitals

         WHEREAS the Court previously authorized a stay of 30 days to enable the Plaintiff and Defendant (collectively, "the Parties") to attempt to negotiate a settlement; and

         WHEREAS the Parties have recently reached an agreement in principle to settle their dispute, and are actively engaged in negotiating and documenting the details of that agreement; and

         WHEREAS "the power to stay proceedings is incidental to the power inherent in every court to control the disposition of the causes on its own 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)). "[T]he law favors and encourages compromise settlements, " Ahern v. Cent. P. Freight Lines, 846 F.2d 47, 48 (9th Cir. 1988), and courts routinely order stays to facilitate settlement efforts. See, e.g., 13B Charles A. Wright, et al., Federal Practice & Procedure § 3533.2 (2009) ("[A] court may stay proceedings if the parties are working toward settlement...."); and

         WHEREAS the Parties agree that a further stay is desirable both to enable them to finalize their settlement and to conserve judicial resources. See White v. Novartis Pharm. Corp., No. 06-cv-00665, 2006 WL 1409556, at *1 (E.D. Cal. May 22, 2006) ("[B]ecause the parties appear to be in agreement that a stay is warranted, or at least acceptable, the court sees no reason not to exercise its inherent power to issue one.");

         NOW, THEREFORE, for the foregoing reasons, the Parties jointly stipulate that it is in the interests of all concerned and will promote judicial economy to continue to stay this case in its entirety as set forth below, or on such other terms as the Court may order:

         1. This case shall continue to be stayed and all associated dates and deadlines vacated. The stay shall remain in effect for a period of 30 additional days.

         2. Within the additional 30-day stay period, the Parties shall meet and confer in good faith to finalize their agreement in principle.

         3. When the settlement agreement is final, the Parties will notify the Court promptly by filing appropriate dispositional documents.

         4. Should the case not be resolved, the Parties will notify the Court at the close of the additional 30-day period so that the Court may issue a new scheduling order.

          ORDER

         Pursuant to the joint stipulation of the Parties:

         1. This case shall be stayed and all associated dates and deadlines vacated. The stay shall remain in effect for a period of 30 days.

         2. Within the 30-day stay period, the Parties shall meet and confer in good faith to finalize their agreement in principle.

         3. When the settlement agreement is final, the Parties will notify the Court promptly by filing appropriate dispositional documents.

         4. Should the case not be resolved, the Parties will notify the Court at the close of the 30-day period so that the Court may issue a new scheduling order.

         IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Tyrrel v. Union Pacific Railroad Co.

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, E.D. California, Sacramento Division
Dec 31, 2015
2:15-cv-02048-JAM-KJN (E.D. Cal. Dec. 31, 2015)
Case details for

Tyrrel v. Union Pacific Railroad Co.

Case Details

Full title:BONNIE TYRREL, Plaintiff, v. UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY and DOES 1…

Court:United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, E.D. California, Sacramento Division

Date published: Dec 31, 2015

Citations

2:15-cv-02048-JAM-KJN (E.D. Cal. Dec. 31, 2015)