Gregorio v. Green Diamond Resource Company

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE JASON GREGORIO et al., CASE NO. 2:24-cv-00596-LK Plaintiffs, ORDER GRANTING JOINT 12 v. MOTION TO STAY CASE 13 GREEN DIAMOND RESOURCE COMPANY, Defendant.

This matter comes before the Court on the parties’ Joint Motion to Stay Case Pending Preliminary Approval of Settlement. Dkt. No. 59. Because Plaintiffs Jason Gregorio, Thomas Valentine, Leo McGowan, Vincelle Calica, Raymond Calica, and Tamara Cowles (“Plaintiffs”) and Defendant Green Diamond Resource Company “have reached a settlement in principle,” they “jointly request the Court stay this case, including all case deadlines, pending Plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary approval.” Id. at 1. For the reasons explained below, the motion is granted. “[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). The Court “may order a stay of the action pursuant to its power to control its docket and calendar and to provide for a just determination of the cases pending before it.” Leyva v. Certified Grocers of Cal., Ltd., 593 4 F.2d 857, 864 (9th Cir. 1979). In considering whether to grant a stay, courts consider several factors, including “the possible damage which may result,” “the hardship or inequity which a party may suffer in being required to go forward,” and “the orderly course of justice[.]” CMAX, Inc. v. 7 Hall, 300 F.2d 265, 268 (9th Cir. 1962).

8 Here, the Parties request that the Court stay this case “pending Plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary approval” of the parties’ settlement so that the parties may “dedicate their efforts to memorializing the settlement and preparing the papers requesting preliminary approval.” Dkt. No. 59 at 1–2. The Court finds that a stay is appropriate to preserve the parties’ and the Court’s resources as the parties complete the steps required to consummate their settlement. See Dkt. No. 59 at 2. A stay to allow that process to occur will not cause any damage, nor any hardship or inequity to any party, and will promote the orderly course of justice.

15 The Court thus GRANTS the parties’ Joint Motion, Dkt. No. 59, and STAYS this case, including all case deadlines, until one or both parties move to lift the stay. The Clerk is DIRECTED to remove Green Diamond’s pending motion to dismiss, Dkt. No. 35, from the Court’s motions calendar. Green Diamond may request that the Court reinstate its motion in the event that the settlement is not consummated.

20 Dated this 5th day of May, 2025.

A Lauren King 22 United States District Judge