1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 AKB PETROLEUM, INC., Case No. 23-cv-388-MMA (DEB)

12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING JOINT 13 v. MOTION TO STAY CASE

14 CIRCLE K STORES INC., et al., [Doc. No. 9] 15 Defendants. 16 17 On February 28, 2023, Plaintiff AKB Petroleum, Inc. initiated this action against 18 Defendant Circle K Stores Inc. Doc. No. 1. On March 30, 2023, Defendant filed an 19 Answer. Doc. No. 13. The parties now jointly move the Court to stay this case. 20 According to the parties, this case is substantially similar to the case of Windy Cove et al. 21 v. Circle K Stores, Inc., Case No. 21-cv-1416-MMA-DEB (“Windy Cove”). Judgment 22 was entered in favor of Circle K in Windy Cove, and the Court’s Summary Judgment 23 Order and Entry of Judgment are pending appeal. See USCA Case No. 23-2679. The 24 parties agree that disposition of the appeal in Windy Cove will likely “aid and provide 25 guidance as to the issues presented in the present case, or at least the important issues in 26 this litigation, and will be of benefit to both the Court and the Parties in the litigation and 27 disposition of the present case.” Doc. No. 9 at 3. Accordingly, the parties ask the Court 28 to stay this case pending the Windy Cove appeal. 1 “A district court has discretionary power to stay proceedings in its own court.” 2 Lockyer v. Mirant Corp.,

(9th Cir. 2005) (citing Landis v. N. Am. 3 Co.,

(1936)). “[T]he power to stay proceedings is incidental to the 4 power inherent in every court to control the disposition of the causes on its docket with 5 economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants.” Landis,

254. A district court may stay a case “pending resolution of independent proceedings 7 which bear upon the case,” even if those proceedings are not “necessarily controlling of 8 the action before the court.” Leyva v. Certified Grocers of Cal., Ltd.,

, 863– 9 64 (9th Cir. 1979) (citations omitted). 10 In determining whether to grant a stay, courts in the Ninth Circuit weigh the 11 “competing interests which will be affected by the granting or refusal to grant a stay,” 12 including: 13 [1] the possible damage which may result from the granting of a stay, [2] the 14 hardship or inequity which a party may suffer in being required to go forward, 15 and [3] the orderly course of justice measured in terms of the simplifying or complicating of issues, proof, and questions of law which could be expected 16 to result from a stay. 17 18 Lockyer,

(quoting CMAX, Inc. v. Hall,

(9th Cir. 19 1962) (identifying the Landis factors)). “‘[I]f there is even a fair possibility that the stay 20 . . . will work damage to someone else,’ the stay may be inappropriate absent a showing 21 by the moving party of ‘hardship or inequity.’” Dependable Highway Express, Inc. v. 22 Navigators Ins. Co.,

(9th Cir. 2007) (quoting Landis,

255). 24 Here the Court finds that the Landis factors weigh in favor of granting a stay. A 25 stay will result in minimal to no damage, hardship, or inequity to either party. Further, 26 the overlapping factual and legal issues weigh in favor of a stay, and granting a stay 27 would allow the Court to better manage its resources. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS 28 the parties’ joint motion and STAYS this case pending resolution of the Windy Cove 1 ||appeal. The Court DIRECTS the parties to file a joint motion to lift the stay within 2 || fourteen (14) days of the final resolution of the Windy Cove appeal. 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 4 || Dated: November 8, 2023 5 Miku DM Lille 6 HON. MICHAEL M. ANELLO 7 United States District Judge 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28