Clinton v. Jones

127 Citing briefs

  1. Hall v. Forbes Media LLC

    MOTION to Stay Action

    Filed May 23, 2016

    Stays can promote judicial economy, reduce confusion and prejudice, and prevent possibly inconsistent resolutions. See Clinton, 520 U.S. at 706. “A district court may stay a case in order to allow a higher court in a separate case to settle issues of law that have bearing on the matter to be stayed.”

  2. Hall v. Forbes Media LLC

    RESPONSE to 10 MOTION to Stay Action

    Filed June 30, 2016

    May 26, 2009) (denying motion to stay where “delay could result in loss of testimonial and documentary evidence” and noting the Supreme Court’s recognition “that delaying a trial increases ‘the danger of prejudice resulting from the loss of evidence, including the inability of witnesses to recall specific facts.’”) (quoting Clinton, 520 U.S. at 708)). And because discovery will be needed here regardless, there’s no reason to risk harming Plaintiff’s access to evidence.

  3. Lycurgan Inc. v. Jones

    RESPONSE in Opposition re MOTION to Stay

    Filed February 19, 2015

    A stay should not be granted if delaying the proceeding “would increase the danger of prejudice resulting from the loss of evidence, including the inability of witnesses to recall specific facts, or the possible death of a party.” Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 707-08 (1997). Undoubtedly, the individual defendants in this case will have lapses of memory.

  4. Brown et al v. Wal-Mart Store, Inc.

    MOTION for Judgment on the Pleadings OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE MOTION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF

    Filed April 30, 2010

    As discussed below, Wal-Mart s tisfies its burden of establishing that a stay of this action is warranted. Clinton, 520 U.S. at 708. 1.

  5. Committee on the Judiciary of the United States House of Representatives v. Miers et al

    REPLY to opposition to motion re MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint

    Filed June 12, 2008

    at 58, Clinton v. Jones holds only that a President does not enjoy temporary immunity from the burdens of civil litigation arising from events occurring before he assumed office, which precluded the possibility that any decision in the civil litigation “will curtail the scope of the official powers of the Executive Branch.” 520 U.S. at 701. The “litigation of questions that relate entirely to the unofficial conduct of the individual who happens to be President imposes no perceptible risk of misallocation of either judicial power or executive power.”

  6. Committee on the Judiciary of the United States House of Representatives v. Miers et al

    MOTION for Leave to File Amici Curiae Brief

    Filed May 29, 2008

    at 1, 73. The executive could have lodged this same argument when executive privilege first was adjudicated in the courts in the 1970s, United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683 (1974), or in the first civil suit filed against a sitting president for actions he took prior to taking office, Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681 (1997). Then, as now, the lapse of time does not signal that an issue is unfit for judicial resolution.

  7. Parkervision, Inc. v. Apple Inc. et al

    MOTION for summary judgment precluding Parkervision from obtaining a double recovery, or in the alternative, motion to sever and stay

    Filed August 30, 2018

    Stays of proceedings can promote judicial economy, reduce confusion and prejudice, and prevent possibly inconsistent resolutions. See Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 706 (1997). In determining whether a stay is appropriate, courts in this District consider the following factors: “(1) whether a stay will simplify the issues and streamline the trial; (2) whether a stay will reduce the burden of litigation on the parties and the court; and (3) whether the stay will unduly prejudice the non-moving party.”

  8. Uniloc USA, Inc. et al v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al

    RESPONSE in Opposition re Opposed MOTION to Stay Pending Inter Partes Review and Rule 12

    Filed August 3, 2018

    A decision whether to stay a case, vel non, lies within the sound discretion of the district court. Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 706 (1997). There is no rule that patent cases must be stayed pending Patent Office proceedings.

  9. Low v. Trump University, LLC et al

    RESPONSE in Opposition re Ex Parte MOTION to Continue Trial Date Plaintiffs' Opposition to Defendants' Ex Parte Application to Continue Trial Date

    Filed November 14, 2016

    Whereas Nixon involved potential liability stemming from official acts while in office, the Clinton Court found the reasoning of that case “provides no support for an immunity for unofficial conduct.” 520 U.S. at 694 (emphasis in original). Instead, the Court cited approvingly the majority holding of the appellate court in the matter before it, that “‘the President, like all other government officials, is subject to the same laws that apply to all other members of our society.

  10. Taylor et al v. Nationstar Mortgage, LLC et al

    MOTION to Stay Proceedings Pending Ruling

    Filed March 11, 2016

    (quotation marks omitted); Robinson v. Section 23 Prop. Owner’s Ass’n, No. 2:12-cv-675-FtM-29CM, 2014 WL 2215757, at *6 (M.D. Fla. May 27, 2014) (citing Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 706 (1997)). A. Other federal courts, including on in this District, have granted stays in precisely the same circumstances.