1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RITA TALBERT, No. 2:24-cv-03400-DAD-JDP 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER GRANTING THE PARTIES’ REQUEST TO STAY THIS ACTION 14 AMAZON RETAIL LLC, (Doc. No. 8) 15 Defendant.

16 17 On January 2, 2025, the parties filed a joint stipulation to stay this action pending the 18 resolution of an earlier-filed wage-and-hour class action in the United States District Court for the 19 Central District of California, Chicas v. Amazon Retail LLC, Case No. 2:24-cv-10306-FMO-SSC 20 (C.D. Cal.) (“the Chicas action”). (Doc. No. 8.) In their request, the parties state that “the 21 plaintiffs in Chicas assert substantially similar claims to those asserted by Talbert in this action 22 and seek to represent a putative class composed of ‘all current and former non-exempt employees 23 of [Amazon Retail] in the State of California at any time within the period beginning 24 [September 25, 2020] and ending at the time this action settles or the class is certified,’ Chicas 25 Compl. ¶ 6, which includes the overwhelming majority of Talbert’s putative class and Talbert 26 herself . . . .” (Doc. No. 8 at 2–3) (alterations in original). The parties argue that “the interests of 27 efficiency and judicial economy would be served by staying this action” in light of “the overlap 28 between the claims at issue in Chicas and this case . . . .” (Id. at 3.) 1 “[T]he power to stay proceedings is incidental to the power inherent in every court to 2 control the disposition of the causes on its docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for 3 counsel, and for litigants.” Landis v. N. Am. Co.,

(1936); accord Stone v. INS, 4

(1995) (Breyer, J., dissenting) (“[W]e have long recognized that courts have 5 inherent power to stay proceedings and ‘to control the disposition of the causes on its docket with 6 economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants.’”) (quoting Landis,

); Ernest Bock, LLC v. Steelman,

(9th Cir. 2023). Deciding whether to 8 grant a stay pending the outcome of other proceedings “calls for the exercise of judgment, which 9 must weigh competing interests and maintain an even balance.” Landis, 299 U.S. at 254–55. 10 In considering whether to grant a stay, this court must weigh several factors, including 11 “[1] the possible damage which may result from the granting of a stay, [2] the hardship or 12 inequity which a party may suffer in being required to go forward, and [3] the orderly course of 13 justice measured in terms of the simplifying or complicating of issues, proof, and questions of law 14 which could be expected to result from a stay.” CMAX, Inc. v. Hall,

(9th Cir. 15 1962) (citing Landis, 299 U.S. at 254–55); see also Ernest Bock, LLC,

. A stay 16 may be granted regardless of whether the separate proceedings are “judicial, administrative, or 17 arbitral in character, and does not require that the issues in such proceedings are necessarily 18 controlling of the action before the court.” Leyva v. Certified Grocers of Cal., Ltd.,

, 19 864 (9th Cir. 1979). 20 The court concludes that the possible damage which may result from the granting of a stay 21 here is minimal in light of the parties’ stipulation. Furthermore, the court concludes that “the 22 orderly course of justice,” CMAX,

, and considerations of “economy of time and 23 effort for [the court], for counsel, and for litigants,” Landis,

, weigh strongly in 24 favor of staying this action given the overlapping nature of the claims at issue in the Chicas action 25 and this case. 26 Accordingly, the parties’ joint request to stay this action (Doc. No. 8) is granted. The 27 parties shall file a joint status report within 90 days from the date of entry of this order, and every 28 90 days thereafter, informing this court as to the status of the related proceedings in the Chicas 1 | action. In addition, the parties shall file a notice informing this court that a final judgment has 2 | been entered in the Chicas action within fourteen (14) days of entry of that judgment by the 3 | district court. 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. > | Dated: _ January 10, 2025 Dab A. 2, sxe 6 DALE A. DROZD 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28