Sims v. City of Seattle

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 9 AT SEATTLE 11 ANTHONY SIMS, CASE NO. 2:22-cv-00483-TL 12 Plaintiff, ORDER ON MOTION TO STAY v. CITY OF SEATTLE, a municipal 14 corporation, and ROBERT BROWN, GREGORY NASH, GARRETT 15 FOLLETTE, and BRADLEY RICHARDSON, Officers of the Seattle 16 Police Department, 17 Defendants.

19 This matter is before the Court on Defendants’ Motion to Stay or Continue Trial and Trial Related Deadlines Pending Disposition of Interlocutory Appeal. Dkt. No. 72. Having reviewed Plaintiff Anthony Sims’s response (Dkt. No. 73), Defendants’ reply (Dkt. No. 74), and the relevant record, the Court DENIES the motion without prejudice.

23 On July 31, 2023, the Court issued an order on the Parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment. Dkt. No. 61. On August 3, the Court ordered the Parties to submit a joint status report, including a proposed case schedule from mediation to trial. Dkt. No. 62. On August 16, the Parties filed that report. Dkt. No. 64. In that report, Defendants noted the initiation of an interlocutory appeal, but they did not request a stay (or note an anticipated motion to stay). Id. at 2. Instead, Defendants proposed a trial date of March 12, 2024, with corresponding pretrial dates.

5 Id. at 2. Plaintiff proposed a trial date of October 31, 2023. Id. On October 26, the Court adopted Defendants’ proposal with slight modification, setting a trial date of April 15, 2024. Dkt. No. 71.

7 Defendants now move to stay or continue the trial schedule they largely proposed. Dkt. No. 72; see also Dkt. No. 74 (reply). Plaintiff opposes. Dkt. No. 73.

9 The Court finds that ordering a stay at this time would be premature. See R.W. v. Columbia Basin Coll., No. C18-5089, 2019 WL 13201975, at *5–7 (E.D. Wash. Oct. 21, 2019) (applying factors from Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248 (1936), to a request for stay pending interlocutory appeal); see also Lockyer v. Mirant Corp., 398 F.3d 1098, 1111–13 (9th Cir. 2005) (applying Landis factors). While proceeding to trial on Plaintiff’s Monell claim risks inconsistent rulings and trials (see Dkt. No. 72 at 4–6), it is not yet reasonably certain that the Ninth Circuit will not resolve the appeal prior to the trial date, nor is it reasonably certain that the outcome of the appeal will be dispositive of Plaintiff’s claim. There is also risk of harm to Plaintiff’s right to prosecute his claim, and to the public’s interest in seeing this case resolved in a timely manner.

18 See Dkt. No. 73 at 3–4.

19 Defendants may refile their motion in February 2024, when the Parties and the Court are likely to have a sharpened sense of prospects for the appeal. In the meantime, Defendants’ pending motion in limine will be renoted to the current pretrial deadline for such motions.

22 Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED: 23 (1) Defendants’ Motion to Stay or Continue Trial and Trial Related Deadlines 24 Pending Disposition of Interlocutory Appeal (Dkt. No. 72) is DENIED without 1 prejudice. Defendants may refile their motion on or after February 15, 2024, if 2 appropriate.

3 (2) Defendants’ Motion in Limine to Exclude Expert Testimony of Russ Hicks (Dkt.

4 No. 44) is RENOTED for March 11, 2024.

5 Dated this 20th day of November 2023.

A Tana Lin United States District Judge