Opinion
Case No.: 1:16-cv-1406-AWI-JLT Case No.: 1:16-cv-1407-LJO-JLT Case No.: 1:16-cv-1408-DAD-JLT Case No.: 1:16-cv-1409-AWI-JLT Case No.: 1:16-cv-1410-LJO-JLT Case No.: 1:16-cv-1411-DAD-JLT Case No.: 1:16-cv-1414- LJO-JLT Case No.: 1:16-cv-1415-LJO-JLT Case No.: 1:16-cv-1449-LJO -JLT Case No.: 1:16-cv-1454-DAD-JLT Case No.: 1:16-cv-1455- DAD-JLT Case No.: 1:16-cv-1456-LJO-JLT Case No.: 1:16-cv-1465-AWI-JLT Case No.: 1:16-cv-1499-AWI- JLT Case No.: 1:16-cv-1503-DAD- JLT Case No.: 1:16-cv-1506-DAD- JLT Case No.: 1:16-cv-1508-LJO- JLT Case No.: 1:16-cv-1509-LJO- JLT Case No.: 1:16-cv-1510-LJO- JLT Case No.: 1:16-cv-1511-LJO- JLT Case No.: 1:16-cv-1520-LJO- JLT Case No.: 1:16-cv-1521-AWI- JLT Case No.: 1:16-cv-1522-LJO- JLT Case No.: 1:16-cv-1529-DAD- JLT Case No.: 1:16-cv-1530-DAD- JLT Case No.: 1:16-cv-1594-AWI- JLT Case No.: 1:16-cv-1595-DAD- JLT Case No.: 1:16-cv-1596-DAD- JLT
10-28-2016
THERESA BROOKE, Plaintiff, v. H&K PARTNERSHIP, a California partnership dba Best Economy Inn & Suites, Defendant. THERESA BROOKE, Plaintiff, v. C & S CHONG INVESTMENT CORPORATION, a California corporation dba La Quinta Inn Bakersfield North, Defendant. THERESA BROOKE, Plaintiff, v. JDS HOSPITALITY GROUP, LLC, a California limited liability company dba Days Inn Bakersfield, Defendant. THERESA BROOKE, Plaintiff, v. JHP HOSPITALITY GROUP, INC., a California corporation dba Ramada Limited Bakersfield North, Defendant. THERESA BROOKE, Plaintiff, v. D.P.R.L. INVESTMENTS, LLC, a California limited liability company dba Hotel Rosedale, Defendant. THERESA BROOKE, Plaintiff, v. KOO JIN HYUN & CHU MYUNG HEE, trustees of the KOO JIN HYUN & CHU MYUNG HEE TRUST dba Hampton Inn & Suites Bakersfield North-Airport, Defendants. THERESA BROOKE, Plaintiff, v. PRIME HOSPITALITY SERVICES, LLC, a California limited liability company dba Hampton Inn & Suites Bakersfield/Hwy 58, Defendant. THERESA BROOKE, Plaintiff, v. RP GOLDEN STATE MGT, LLC, a California limited liability company dba Garden Suites Inn, Defendant. THERESA BROOKE, Plaintiff, v. KPK, INC., a California corporation dba Travelodge Turlock, Defendant. THERESA BROOKE, Plaintiff, v. LILJENQUIST MODESTO COMPANY, LLC, a California limited liability company dba Modesto Hotel, Defendant. THERESA BROOKE, Plaintiff, v. METRO HOSPITALITY SERVICES, INC., a California corporation dba Hampton Inn Fresno NW, Defendant. THERESA BROOKE, Plaintiff, v. JAYESHKUMAR PATEL, an individual; PRAFULBHAI PATEL, an individual, both individuals dba Budget Inn Modesto, Defendants. THERESA BROOKE, Plaintiff, v. KHATRI BROTHERS, L.P., a California limited partnership dba Clarion Modesto, Defendant. THERESA BROOKE, Plaintiff, v. A&A TARZANA PLAZA, LP, a California limited partnership dba Hilton Garden Inn Clovis, Defendant. THERESA BROOKE, Plaintiff, v. THANDI ENTERPRISES, LLC, a California limited liability company dba Holiday Inn Express Fresno, Defendant. THERESA BROOKE, Plaintiff, v. FRESNO AIRPORT HOTELS, LLC, a California limited liability company dba Ramada Fresno Airport, Defendant. THERESA BROOKE, Plaintiff, v. KAINTH BROTHERS, INC., a California corporation dba Country Inn Suites Fresno North, Defendant. THERESA BROOKE, Plaintiff, v. SHIV HOTELS, LLC, a California limited liability company dba Hampton Inn Fresno, Defendant. THERESA BROOKE, Plaintiff, v. SHIVKRUPA INVESTMENTS, INC., a California corporation dba La Quinta Inn Suites Fresno, Defendant. THERESA BROOKE, Plaintiff, v. SHRIGI, INC., a California corporation dba Welcome Inn Fresno, Defendant. THERESA BROOKE, Plaintiff, v. THE DAE SUNG & HEE JAE CHA TRUST dba Quality Inn Tulare, Defendant. THERESA BROOKE, Plaintiff, v. HANFORD INVESTORS, INC., a California corporation dba Comfort Inn Hanford, Defendant. THERESA BROOKE, Plaintiff, v. INTERLINK PROPERTIES L.P., a California limited partnership dba Hampton Inn Visalia, Defendant. THERESA BROOKE, Plaintiff, v. NMA HOSPITALITY LLC, a California limited liability company dba La Quinta Tulare, Defendant. THERESA BROOKE, Plaintiff, v. TERRA INVESTMENTS I, LLC, a California limited liability company dba Charter Inn Suites, Defendant. THERESA BROOKE, Plaintiff, v. PICADILLY INN UNIVERSITY, dba University Square Hotel, Defendant. THERESA BROOKE, Plaintiff, v. DAYS INN OF FRESNO PARTNERSHIP, dba Days Inn Fresno Central, Defendant. THERESA BROOKE, Plaintiff, v. PICADILLY INN EXPRESS, Defendant.
ORDER STAYING ALL OF THE RELATED ACTIONS
A district court has the inherent power to stay its proceedings. This power to stay 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. North American Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936); see also Gold v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp., 723 F.2d 1068, 1077 (3d Cir.1983) (holding that the power to stay proceedings comes from the power of every court to manage the cases on its docket and to ensure a fair and efficient adjudication of the matter at hand). This is best accomplished by the "exercise of judgment, which must weigh competing interests and maintain an even balance." Landis, 299 U.S. at 254-55. In determining whether to issue a stay, courts consider the potential prejudice to the non-moving party; the hardship or inequity to the moving party if the action is not stayed; and the judicial resources that would be saved by simplifying the case or avoiding duplicative litigation if the case before the court is stayed. CMAX, Inc. v. Hall, 300 F.2d 265, 268 (9th Cir.1962).
Recently, the Court ordered the plaintiff to show cause why the actions should not be dismissed for lack of standing and lack of subject matter jurisdiction. To allow time for this issue to be resolved and to avoid the occurrence of events inconsistent with the Court's attempts to preserve judicial resources—including, for example, the filing of motions to dismiss—until the standing issue is resolved, the Court concludes that a stay is necessary. Thus, explicitly, the Court finds the parties' and the Court's resources would be preserved if the matter was stayed pending the resolution of the standing issue. Finally, the Court finds that there would be no hardship as a result of the brief stay that it anticipates. Accordingly, the Court ORDERS:
1. Except for the plaintiff's obligation to comply with the orders to show cause, the actions are STAYED. All other deadlines—including the obligation of the defendants to file responsive pleadings—are not in effect at this time. IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 28 , 2016
/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE