Edwards-Yu v. DeJoy

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE LIJUNG EDWARDS-YU, 9 Plaintiff, Case No. C21-156-RSM-MLP 10 v. ORDER LOUIS DEJOY, 12 Defendant.

14 This matter comes before the Court on Defendant’s Motion to Stay the Pretrial Deadlines and Trial Setting (“Defendant’s Motion”) due to Defendant’s pending summary judgment motion. (Dkt. # 48.) Plaintiff opposes any delay to pretrial deadlines without also delaying the trial date but argues she “has been preparing for trial for over [one] year and any further delay will deprive Plaintiff of potential relief demanded through the lawsuit.” (Dkt. # 49 at 2.)

19 Courts have inherent power to stay proceedings. Landis v. North American Co., 299 U.S. 20 248, 254 (1936). In considering the appropriateness of a stay, courts balance the competing interests of the parties, including: (1) the damage that may result from a stay; (2) inequity suffered by a party if the case moves forward; and (3) any impact to the “orderly course of justice.” Lockyer v. Mirant Corp., 398 F.3d 1098, 1110 (9th Cir. 2005) (citation omitted).

1 Here, trial is currently set for November 8, 2022. (Dkt. # 12.) The Court has issued a Report and Recommendation, with a noting date of October 21, 2022, recommending that Defendant’s summary judgment motion be granted and that this action be dismissed. (Dkt. # 51.)

4 Therefore, the Court finds a stay is warranted in this matter until the resolution of this Court’s Report and Recommendation.

6 Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s Motion (dkt. # 48). The trial date and pending deadlines are hereby STAYED pending resolution of the Report and Recommendation.

8 Dated this 4th day of October, 2022.

A 10 MICHELLE L. PETERSON United States Magistrate Judge