12 Cited authorities

  1. Landis v. North American Co.

    299 U.S. 248 (1936)   Cited 8,374 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a decision to stay proceedings "calls for the exercise of judgment, which must weigh competing interests and maintain an even balance"
  2. Leyva v. Certified Grocers of Cal., Ltd.

    593 F.2d 857 (9th Cir. 1979)   Cited 1,092 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the arbitrator does have the power to determine whether various provisions in the contract are void
  3. Filtrol Corporation v. Kelleher

    467 F.2d 242 (9th Cir. 1973)   Cited 82 times
    Recognizing that a district court has discretion to stay proceedings pending the outcome of a separate action to "promote economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants" (quoting Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254-55 (1936))
  4. Unwired Planet, LLC v. Square, Inc.

    3:13-cv-00579-RCJ-WGC (D. Nev. Oct. 3, 2014)   Cited 11 times
    Finding that additional construction of certain terms would be an "exercise in redundancy" based on "the surrounding claim language that already limits the claims in the way Defendant proposes to do by limiting the meanings of the terms"
  5. McDaniels v. Stewart

    CASE NO. 3:15-CV-05943-BHS-DWC (W.D. Wash. Jan. 13, 2017)   Cited 7 times

    CASE NO. 3:15-CV-05943-BHS-DWC 01-13-2017 PETER J. MCDANIELS, Plaintiff, v. BELINDA STEWART et al., Defendants. David W. Christel United States Magistrate Judge ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO STAY AND GRANTING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND COMPLAINT The District Court has referred this action, filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, to United States Magistrate Judge David W. Christel. This matter comes before the Court on: (1) Plaintiff's "Motion to Stay Issue #2" (hereinafter "Motion to Stay," Dkt. 140) and (2)

  6. Stephens v. Comenity, LLC

    287 F. Supp. 3d 1091 (D. Nev. 2017)   Cited 4 times

    Case No. 2:17–cv–00670–MMD–NJK 12-08-2017 Jennifer STEPHENS and Christopher Gulley on behalf of themselves, and all other similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. COMENITY, LLC dba Comenity Bank, Defendant. Comenity LLC, Third–Party Plaintiff, v. Jackie Wasowicz, an individual, Third–Party Defendant. Alexis M. Wood, Kas L. Gallucci, Pro Hac Vice, Ronald A. Marron, Pro Hac Vice, Law Offices of Ronald A. Marron, San Diego, CA, Kevin L. Hernandez, Law Office of Kevin L. Hernandez, Henderson, NV, for Plaintiffs

  7. Holland v. Island Creek Corp.

    885 F. Supp. 4 (D.D.C. 1995)   Cited 17 times

    Civ. A. Nos. 87-1210 SSH, 87-1973 SSH and 90-1347 SSH. April 7, 1995. Julia Penny Clark, Ian David Lanoff, Bredhoff Kaiser, Jeremiah C. Collins, Williams Connolly, Washington, DC, for plaintiffs. Jonathan D. Schiller, Gary K. Harris, Randal S. Milch, Raymond Paretsky, Donovan, Leisure, Rogovin Schiller, Judith Ann Scott, Robert H. Stropp, Jr., Earl V. Brown, Jr., Int'l Brthd. of Teamsters, John R. Mooney, Paul A. Green, Hugh J. Beins, Beins, Axelrod, Osborne, Mooney Green, William I. Althen, Barbara

  8. Rule 12 - Defenses and Objections: When and How Presented; Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings; Consolidating Motions; Waiving Defenses; Pretrial Hearing

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 12   Cited 349,819 times   936 Legal Analyses
    Granting the court discretion to exclude matters outside the pleadings presented to the court in defense of a motion to dismiss
  9. Rule 72 - Magistrate Judges: Pretrial Order

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 72   Cited 169,222 times   20 Legal Analyses
    Granting a party fourteen days to object to a Magistrate Judge's non-dispositive order
  10. Rule 55 - Default; Default Judgment

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 55   Cited 33,424 times   13 Legal Analyses
    Adopting similar language for acquiring default judgment against the United States
  11. Rule 5 - Serving and Filing Pleadings and Other Papers

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 5   Cited 22,386 times   16 Legal Analyses
    Allowing service by filing papers with the court's electronic-filing system
  12. Rule 1 - Scope and Purpose

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 1   Cited 15,238 times   49 Legal Analyses
    Recognizing the federal rules of civil procedure should be employed to promote the "just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action and proceeding"