Eteros Technologies USA, Inc., et al. v. United States of America, et al.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE ETEROS TECHNOLOGIES USA, INC., et CASE NO. C25-0181-KKE al., ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO STAY Plaintiff(s), v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al., Defendant(s).

13 On October 24, 2025, Defendants requested a stay of the time to file a reply to Plaintiffs’ opposition to its motion to dismiss due to a lapse in appropriations to the Department of Justice.

15 Dkt. No. 48. Defendants further propose that its deadline be extended “by the total number of days of the lapse in appropriations.” Id. at 2.

17 “A district court has discretionary power to stay proceedings in its own court[.]” Lockyer v. Mirant Corp., 398 F.3d 1098, 1109 (9th Cir. 2005) (citing Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936)). In determining whether a stay is appropriate, the Court weighs the “competing interests which will be affected by the granting or refusal to grant a stay[,]” including: 21 the possible damage which may result from the granting of a stay, the hardship or inequity which a party may suffer in being required to go forward, and the orderly 22 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.

Lockyer, 398 F.3d at 1110 (quoting CMAX, Inc. v. Hall, 300 F.2d 265, 268 (9th Cir. 1962)).

1 Because of the lapse in appropriations to the Department of Justice, which represents Defendants in this case, Defendants contend that they cannot adequately prepare their reply to Plaintiffs’ opposition to the pending motion to dismiss, which is due on October 29, 2025. Dkt.

4 No. 48 at 2. Although Plaintiffs declined to agree to a stay (id. at 1), the Court nonetheless finds that a stay is appropriate due to the prejudice that will result to Defendants if their counsel is unable to meet deadlines during the lapse in appropriations.

7 The Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion to stay the time to file a reply to Plaintiffs’ opposition until Congress restores appropriations to the Department. Dkt. No. 48. The Court VACATES the noting date (Dkt. No. 40), and ORDERS Defendants to notify Plaintiffs and the Court within two days of the restoration of appropriations. The Court will lift the stay at that time and set a deadline for Defendant’s reply brief, along with any other modifications to the case schedule necessitated by the stay.

13 Dated this 27th day of October, 2025.

A Kymberly K. Evanson 16 United States District Judge