Carbon Autonomous Robotic Systems Inc. v. Laudando & Assoc.

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CARBON AUTONOMOUS ROBOTIC No. 2:24-cv-03012-DAD-JDP SYSTEMS INC., Plaintiff, 13 ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION v. TO STAY THIS ACTION LAUDANDO & ASSOCIATES LLC, (Doc. No. 78) Defendant.

LAUDANDO & ASSOCIATES LLC, Counter Claimant, v. CARBON AUTONOMOUS ROBOTIC SYSTEMS INC., Counter Defendant.

24 This matter is before the court on plaintiff’s motion to stay this action while defendant obtains substitute counsel. (Doc. No. 78.) Specifically, plaintiff contends that a stay is appropriate because under the court’s scheduling order as modified (Doc. Nos. 37, 55-1, 56), it is required to serve a disclosure of asserted claims and infringement contentions by June 20, 2025, //// but—because defendant Laudando & Associates LLC is currently unrepresented—“there is nobody on whom to serve such contentions and documents.” (Doc. No. 78-1 at 2.)

3 “[T]he power to stay proceedings is incidental to the power inherent in every court to control the disposition of the causes on its docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants.” Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936); accord Stone v. INS, 514 U.S. 386, 411 (1995) (Breyer, J., dissenting) (“[W]e have long recognized that courts have inherent power to stay proceedings and ‘to control the disposition of the causes on its docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants.’”) (quoting Landis, 299 U.S. 9 at 254); Ernest Bock, LLC v. Steelman, 76 F.4th 827, 842 (9th Cir. 2023). Deciding whether to grant a stay pending the outcome of other proceedings “calls for the exercise of judgment, which must weigh competing interests and maintain an even balance.” Landis, 299 U.S. at 254–55.

12 In considering whether to grant a stay, this court must weigh several factors, including “[1] the possible damage which may result from the granting of a stay, [2] the hardship or inequity which a party may suffer in being required to go forward, 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 to result from a stay.” CMAX, Inc. v. Hall, 300 F.2d 265, 268 (9th Cir. 1962) (citing Landis, 299 U.S. at 254–55); see also Ernest Bock, LLC, 76 F.4th at 842. A stay may be granted regardless of whether the separate proceedings are “judicial, administrative, or arbitral in character, and does not require that the issues in such proceedings are necessarily controlling of the action before the court.” Leyva v. Certified Grocers of Cal., Ltd., 593 F.2d 857, 864 (9th Cir. 1979).

22 The court concludes that the possible damage which may result from the granting of a stay here is minimal in light of defendant currently lacking representation. Furthermore, the court concludes that “the orderly course of justice,” CMAX, 300 F.2d at 268, and considerations of “economy of time and effort for [the court], for counsel, and for litigants,” Landis, 299 U.S. at 26 254, weigh strongly in favor of staying this action given that defendant is not otherwise able to proceed in this matter without counsel. See L.R. 183(a); see also Abercrombie v. Vestra Labs ///// LLC, No. 2:23-cv-01529-KJM-AC, ECF No. 21 (staying action where the corporate defendant | was unrepresented to permit the defendant to obtain substitute counsel).

3 Accordingly, plaintiff's motion to stay this action (Doc. No. 78) is granted. This action 1s | STAYED through July 1, 2025, to permit defendant to obtain substitute counsel by the deadline | previously set by the court. (Doc. No. 75.) The stay will lift automatically on July 2, 2025 | without a further order of this court. The court directs the parties to file a joint status report | regarding further scheduling by July 16, 2025. All other dates and deadlines are vacated.

8 IT IS SO ORDERED. | Dated: _ June 17, 2025 Dae A. 2, eyel 10 DALE A. DROZD UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE