Case Information
*1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE O.H., an individual; C.D., an individual, CASE NO. 2:23-cv-00060-JNW Plaintiffs, ORDER STAYING CASE v. SECRET HARBOR, a non-profit corporation,
Defendants.
The Court raises this matter on its own accord. On May 20, 2025—less than two days before jury selection—Secret Harbor announced for the first time its plan to enter receivership. This eleventh-hour revelation prompted the Court to order briefing on whether an automatic stay would apply. Dkt. No. 219. The parties have now submitted their positions, and all agree that if a receiver is appointed, this litigation would be automatically stayed. See Dkt. No. 222 at 2; 223 at 2.
It appears Secret Harbor tried to obtain a receivership order ex parte from the Skagit County Superior Court, but the court commissioner declined to enter such an order without proper notice and instead directed Secret Harbor to file its request on the civil motions calendar. See Dkt. Nos. 222, 223, 224. According to *2 Plaintiffs, the earliest this motion could be heard is June 6, 2025. Dkt. No. 224 at 2.
1 As a result, no automatic stay under RCW 7.60.110 is currently in effect. “[T]he power to stay proceedings 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. N. Am. Co. , 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936). The power extends to stays pending resolution of separate proceedings and does not require the issues in such proceedings be determinative of the action before the Court. Leyva v. Certified Grocers , 593 F.2d 857, 863-64 (9th Cir. 1979). Nor does it require that “the parties to the two causes . . . be the same and the issues identical.” Landis , 299 U.S. at 254. The power to stay also includes the power to do so sua sponte. Doyle v. One W. Bank, N.A. , 2015 WL 4605776, at *3 (C.D. Cal. May 21, 2015). In determining whether a stay is appropriate, the Court must weigh various interests, including: (1) the possible damage to result from granting the stay; (2) the hardship to the parties if the suit proceeds; and (3) the “orderly 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 v. Mirant Corp. , 398 F.3d 1098, 1110 (9th Cir. 2005).
Here, the Court finds that a stay is warranted, though not for reasons that reflect well on Secret Harbor. After years of litigation, extensive discovery, dispositive motions, and pretrial preparation, Secret Harbor waited until hours before trial to drop this bombshell. The timing of this maneuver has wasted party and judicial resources. Indeed, juror summonses have been served, requiring