1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 E.A.R.R., et al., Case No.: 20-CV-2146 TWR (BGS)

12 Plaintiffs, ORDER GRANTING JOINT 13 v. MOTION FOR A STAY

14 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND

SECURITY (“DHS”), et al., 15 (ECF No. 72) Defendants. 16 17 Before the Court is the Parties’ Joint Motion for a Stay. (ECF No. 72.) “[T]he power 18 to stay proceedings is incidental to the power inherent in every court to control the 19 disposition of the causes on its docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for 20 counsel, and for litigants.” Landis v. N. Am. Co.,

(1936). In determining 21 whether to issue a stay, the court considers the “possible damage which may result from 22 the granting of a stay, the hardship or inequity which a party may suffer in being required 23 to go forward, and the orderly course of justice measured in terms of the simplifying or 24 complicating of issues, proof, and questions of law which could be expected to result from 25 a stay.” CMAX, Inc. v. Hall,

(9th Cir. 1962). Here, based on the relevant 26 / / / 27 / / / 28 / / / 1 ||considerations discussed by the Parties, the Court GRANTS the Joint Motion. As 2 || requested, the Court stays this case for sixty (60) days. The Parties shall file an updated 3 status report within 60 days of the date of this Order. 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 || Dated: September 8, 2021 —_—— 6 dd) (2 D (oe 7 Honorable Todd W. Robinson United States District Judge 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28