1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 BRYANT VINEYARDS LTD, Case No. 19-cv-04363-EMC 8 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S EX 9 Vv. PARTE APPLICATION TO STAY 10 LAUREN RIDENHOUR, Docket No. 46 11 Defendant. 12

13 The Winery has filed an ex parte application for a stay of this Court’s transfer order. As 14 || the Winery acknowledges, “where a party seeks to stay a district court proceeding pending the 15 || resolution of another action,” the party is asking for a Landis stay. Lal v. Capital One Fin. Corp., a 16 No. 16-cv-06674-BLF,

, at *3-4 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 23, 2017); see also 3 17 Landis v. N. Am. Co.,

(1936). In the exercise of its discretion, see Lockyer v. Mirant 18 || Corp.,

(9th Cir. 2005) (noting that “[a] district court has discretionary power 19 || to stay proceedings in its own court under Landis’’), the ex parte application is DENIED. 20 This order disposes of Docket No. 46. 21 IT IS SO ORDERED. 22 23 Dated: November 6, 2019 24 LL 25 . - Yio EDWARD Wf CHEN 26 United States District Judge 27 28