Landis v. North American Co.
299 U.S. 248 (1936) Cited 8,579 times 6 Legal AnalysesHolding that a decision to stay proceedings "calls for the exercise of judgment, which must weigh competing interests and maintain an even balance"
Cmax, Inc. v. Hall
300 F.2d 265 (9th Cir. 1962) Cited 1,307 timesHolding that a delay "is not the kind of prejudice which should move a court to deny a requested postponement"
Mediterranean Enters., Inc. v. Ssangyong Corp.
708 F.2d 1458 (9th Cir. 1983) Cited 508 timesHolding that it is within the discretion of a district court to enter a stay, regardless whether the parallel proceeding is "judicial, administrative, or arbitral in character" (quoting Leyva v. Certified Grocers, 593 F.2d 857, 863 (9th Cir. 1979))
Washington v. Brown Williamson Tobacco
959 F.2d 1566 (11th Cir. 1992) Cited 224 timesHolding that class representatives who allege different types of disparate treatment claims to class are atypical
Stewart v. Winter
669 F.2d 328 (5th Cir. 1982) Cited 184 timesHolding that Rule 23 requires "that there be at least one issue whose resolution will affect all or a significant number of the putative class members"
Fuller v. Amerigas Propane, Inc.
NOS. C 09-2493 TEH 09-2616 TEH (N.D. Cal. Aug. 3, 2009) Cited 25 timesHolding that Defendant's arguments showing judicial economy would be served by the stay
IPVX Patent Holdings, Inc. v. 8X8, Inc.
Case No: C 13-01707 SBA (N.D. Cal. Nov. 12, 2013) Cited 2 timesCase No: C 13-01707 SBA 11-12-2013 IPVX PATENT HOLDINGS, INC., a Delaware corporation, Plaintiff, v. 8X8, INC., a Delaware corporation, Defendant. SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG ORDER Docket 83 The parties are presently before the Court on Defendant 8x8, Inc.'s ("Defendant") administrative motion to clarify the Court's directives regarding discovery. Dkt. 83. Having read and considered the papers filed in connection with this matter and being fully informed, the Court hereby STAYS all proceedings in this
Thomas v. Moore USA, Inc.
194 F.R.D. 595 (S.D. Ohio 1999) Cited 14 timesIn Thomas v. Moore, plaintiffs, former employees, brought an antitrust suit against their employers for engaging in collusive conduct by allegedly agreeing not to hire or solicit one another's employees.
Karoun Dairies, Inc. v. Karlacti, Inc.
Civil No. 08cv1521 AJB (WVG) (S.D. Cal. Sep. 3, 2013) Cited 1 timesAgreeing that "moving forward with trial proceedings without awaiting the Ninth Circuit's decision requires the parties to expend significant time and expense to litigate issues . . . that may be completely invalidated by the Ninth Circuit's decision," and reasoning that "it would result in prejudice to both parties if the decision reached by the Ninth Circuit required additional expense and effort in this case by virtue of the case proceeding forward without awaiting its decision"
Hanni v. American Airlines, Inc.
No. C-08-00732 CW (EDL) (N.D. Cal. May. 27, 2009) Cited 3 timesNo. C-08-00732 CW (EDL). May 27, 2009 ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO TEMPORARILY STAY DISCOVERY; DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO ENLARGE TIME FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION DISCOVERY; AND GRANTING IN PART DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SANCTIONS ELIZABETH LAPORTE, Magistrate Judge I. BACKGROUND This is a proposed class action brought by Kathleen Hanni and her family against American Airlines that arises from flight delays on December 29, 2006. On that date, there were storms in Dallas, where the Hannis connected
Rule 26 - Duty to Disclose; General Provisions Governing Discovery
Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 Cited 99,217 times 679 Legal AnalysesAdopting Fed.R.Civ.P. 37
Rule 16 - Pretrial Conferences; Scheduling; Management
Fed. R. Civ. P. 16 Cited 35,128 times 55 Legal AnalysesAdopting the sanctions authorized by Rule 37(b)
Rule 1 - Scope and Purpose
Fed. R. Civ. P. 1 Cited 15,663 times 51 Legal AnalysesRecognizing the federal rules of civil procedure should be employed to promote the "just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action and proceeding"