Sullivan v. MacPherson

CASE NUMBER: CIVIL NO. 20-00248 LEK-KJM CASE NAME: Leihinahina Sullivan vs. Office of the U.S. Attorney, District of Hawaii et al., JUDGE: Leslie E. Kobayashi DATE: 08/16/2021 COURT ACTION: EO: COURT ORDER: GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO RESPOND, FILED ON AUGUST 10, 2021; AND RULING ON DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS, FILED JUNE 25, 2021 On June 25, 2021, Defendants United States of America, Office of the U.S. Attorney District of Hawaii, and the Department of Treasury, Internal Revenue Service (“Defendants”) filed their Motion to Stay Proceedings (“Motion to Stay”). [Dkt. no. 61.]

On July 9, 2021, pro se Plaintiff Leihinahina Sullivan (“Plaintiff”) filed her response to the Motion to Stay, and Defendants filed their reply in support of the Motion to Stay (“Reply”) on July 26, 2021. [Dkt. nos. 63, 64.] On August 10, 2021, Plaintiff filed a motion seeking leave to file a response to Defendants’ Reply (“Motion for Leave”). [Dkt. no. 65.] The Court finds the Motion to Stay and the Motion for Leave suitable for disposition without a hearing, pursuant to Local Rule 7.1(c).

Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave is GRANTED, and this Court has considered the arguments in the Motion for Leave, and the materials attached thereto, in its review of Defendants’ Motion to Stay. The parties are also INFORMED that Defendants’ Motion for Leave is GRANTED, insofar as the instant case is STAYED until December 17, 2021, effectively immediately. Although “[t]he Constitution does not ordinarily require a stay of civil proceedings pending the outcome of criminal proceedings . . . . , a court may decide in its discretion to stay civil proceedings when the interests of justice seem to require such action.” Keating v. Off. of Thrift Supervision, 45 F.3d 322, 324 (9th Cir. 1995) (internal quotation marks, citations, and some alterations omitted). This Court concludes that a stay is appropriate here, “in light of the particular circumstances and competing interests involved in the case.” See Fed. Sav. & Loan Ins. Corp. v. Molinaro, 889 F.2d 899, 902 (9th Cir. 1989) (citation omitted).

A written order will follow that will supersede these rulings. If Plaintiff wishes to file a motion for reconsideration, she must wait until the written order is filed to do so.

IT IS SO ORDERED.