Case Information
*1 Case 2:24-cv-01589-LK Document 27 Filed 05/02/25 Page 1 of 2 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE
MIKRAE E. PRESTON, CASE NO. 2:24-cv-01589-LK Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING STIPULATED v. MOTION TO STAY DEADLINES IN SCHEDULING ORDER SB&C, LTD aka SKAGIT BONDED COLLECTOR, L.L.C.,
Defendant.
This matter comes before the Court on the parties’ stipulated motion to stay deadlines in the Court’s scheduling order. Dkt. No. 26. The parties ask that all current case deadlines be stayed pending the resolution of SB&C’s motion to dismiss. Id. at 2–3. For the reasons explained below, the motion is granted.
“[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 Court “may order a stay of the action pursuant to its power to control its docket and calendar and to provide for a ORDER GRANTING STIPULATED MOTION TO STAY DEADLINES IN SCHEDULING ORDER - 1 *2 Case 2:24-cv-01589-LK Document 27 Filed 05/02/25 Page 2 of 2 1 just determination of the cases pending before it.” Leyva v. Certified Grocers of Cal., Ltd. , 593 F.2d 857, 864 (9th Cir. 1979). In considering whether to grant a stay, courts consider several factors, including “the possible damage which may result,” “the hardship or inequity which a party may suffer in being required to go forward,” and “the orderly course of justice[.]” CMAX, Inc. v. Hall , 300 F.2d 265, 268 (9th Cir. 1962). A stay is appropriate here based on the nature of the upcoming case deadlines; the Court’s ruling on the pending motion could narrow the disputed issues, which will streamline remaining discovery and forthcoming motions practice. A stay pending the Court’s ruling on SB&C’s motion to dismiss will not cause any damage, nor any hardship or inequity to any party, and will promote the orderly course of justice.
The Court thus GRANTS the parties’ motion. Dkt. No. 26. All upcoming case deadlines in the Court’s scheduling order (Dkt. No. 22) will be stayed pending the Court’s order on SB&C’s motion to dismiss. Within five days of the Court’s order on the motion to dismiss, the parties must meet and confer on an amended case schedule and submit their joint proposed amended case schedule to the Court. If the parties cannot agree on a joint proposed case schedule, they must file their individual proposals within eight days of the Court’s order on the motion to dismiss.
Dated this 2nd day of May, 2025.
A Lauren King United States District Judge ORDER GRANTING STIPULATED MOTION TO STAY DEADLINES IN SCHEDULING ORDER - 2