1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CARLOS GONZALEZ, JUAN JOSE Case No.: 17-CV-2573 JLS (SBC) MERINO-RODAS, MARIBEL 12 GUTIERREZ-CANCHOLA, GLADYS ORDER CONTINUING STAY 13 CARRERA-DUARTE, and JENNYE PAGOADA-LOPEZ, individually and on (ECF. No. 51) 14 behalf of all others similarly situated, 15 Plaintiffs, 16 v. 17 CORECIVIC, INC., 18 Defendant. 19

20 Presently before the Court is the Parties’ Joint Status Report (“JSR,” ECF No. 51). 21 For the reasons stated below, the Court CONTINUES ITS STAY of the instant action. 22 BACKGROUND 23 This case involves allegations that Defendant CoreCivic, Inc. undercompensated 24 some civil immigration detainees and forced others to work while detained. See ECF No. 25 44 (the “Order”) at 5. The Court previously stayed this action pending the resolution of 26 class certification in a related case, Owino v. CoreCivic, Inc., 17-CV-1112. Order at 9–10. 27 After the Court certified the Owino class, the Court asked the Parties to file a joint status 28 report outlining their anticipated next steps in this litigation. See ECF No. 50. 1 In the JSR, Plaintiffs indicate that they “understand that they are members in the 2 Owino [c]lass.” JSR at 2. The Parties therefore “intend to wait for the Owino [a]ction to 3 proceed to its completion” to take further action, reasoning that litigating this case 4 alongside Owino risks the “waste of judicial resources and/or prejudice [to either] party’s 5 position.” See id. Thus, the Court must determine whether to continue its previous stay. 6 LEGAL STANDARD 7 The Court may stay an action pending resolution of independent proceedings where 8 “it is efficient for its own docket and the fairest course for the parties.” Leyva v. Certified 9 Grocers of Cal., Ltd.,

(9th Cir. 1979). When determining whether a stay 10 is appropriate, the Court must consider (1) “the possible damage which may result from 11 the granting of a stay,” (2) “the hardship or inequity which a party may suffer in being 12 required to go forward,” and (3) “the simplifying or complicating of issues, proof, and 13 questions of law which could be expected to result from a stay.” CMAX, Inc. v. Hall, 300

, 268 (9th Cir. 1962). 15 ANALYSIS 16 In the instant action, the above factors weigh in favor of a continued stay. First, 17 because Plaintiffs assert that they can obtain relief as members of the Owino class, staying 18 this case will not delay any potential recovery by Plaintiffs. See JSR at 2. Maintaining the 19 stay will not damage Defendant for a similar reason; if Plaintiffs indeed obtain relief 20 through the Owino action, that relief “would satisfy the claims in this action.” See

21 Moreover, because this action and the Owino action involve the same or intertwined 22 facts, witnesses, and legal claims, proceeding with this case would result in duplicative 23 discovery, added complexity, and increased litigation costs for both parties. See Order at 24 6, 9. By contrast, continuing the stay in this action will allow the parties in Owino to 25 resolve those shared legal and factual issues, which will simplify this action should it 26 resume. Thus, the second and third factors both weigh in favor of a stay. 27 / / / 28 / / / 1 CONCLUSION 2 The Court therefore CONTINUES ITS STAY of the instant action pending the 3 || resolution of Owino. The Parties SHALL FILE a joint status report, not to exceed ten (10) 4 || pages, within fourteen (14) days of the resolution of Owino. Should Owino proceed in a 5 ||manner that is unsatisfactory to either Party, that Party may move to lift the Court’s stay 6 || after conferring with the opposing Party. 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 8 ||Dated: September 28, 2023 psi L. Lo meeaitie- 9 on. Janis L. Sammartino United States District Judge 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28