1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 STEVEN D. BOWLES, CASE NO. 1:19-cv-00635-AWI-BAM

9 Plaintiff,

ORDER RE: STIPULATION TO STAY

10 v. CASE AND WITHDRAW

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR

11 LEPRINO FOODS COMPANY; JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS

LEPRINO FOODS DAIRY PRODUCTS

12 COMPANY, (Doc. Nos. 8, 11, 21)

13 Defendants.

14 15 16 I. Introduction 17 This is a lawsuit about an employee, Plaintiff Steven Bowles, whose employer allegedly 18 violated California’s wage-and-hour laws. Bowles alleges that his employer, Defendant Leprino 19 Foods Company and Defendant Leprino Foods Dairy Products Company (collectively, 20 “Defendants”), failed to pay him his lawful wages, provide him with proper meal periods during 21 his shifts, and timely pay him his wages. 22 Bowles is not the only employee to sue Defendants in this Court for alleged wage-and- 23 hour violations. In addition to this lawsuit, there are multiple other pending wage-and-hour 24 lawsuits filed against Defendants by other employees. The Court previously “related” three of 25 these other lawsuits to this lawsuit pursuant to Local Rule 123(c). See Doc. No. 6 (relating the 26 following lawsuits to this lawsuit: (1) Finder v. Leprino Foods Co., et al., 1:13-cv-2059-AWI- 27 BAM; (2) Perez v. Leprino Foods Co., et al., 1:17-cv-0686-AWI-BAM; and (3) Null v. Leprino 28 Foods Co., 19-cv-0525-AWI-BAM). Now, pursuant to Local Rule 123(c), the Court will relate to 1 this lawsuit two more wage-and-hour lawsuits filed against Defendants pending in this Court: 2 namely, (4) Vasquez, et al. v. Leprino Foods Co., et al., 1:17-cv-00796-AWI-BAM; and (5) 3 Howell v. Leprino Foods Co., et al., 1:18-cv-01404-AWI-BAM. Cf. Doc. No. 8 (Defendants’ 4 “Notice of Related Cases”). 5 In light of the five foregoing related lawsuits — most of which were filed before this 6 instant lawsuit — Bowles and Defendants recently stipulated and asked the Court to stay this 7 lawsuit until after the five related cases have been “resolved.” Doc. No. 21. The parties tell the 8 Court that staying this lawsuit until after the resolution of the related cases will “avoid piecemeal 9 litigation, preserve judicial and party resources, prevent duplicative and unnecessary work, and to 10 promote judicial economy and efficiency.” Id. For the following reasons, the Court will deny 11 without prejudice the parties’ request to stay this lawsuit. 12 13 II. Discussion 14 A federal district court has inherent power to stay a lawsuit based on considerations of 15 economy of time and effort for the court, counsel, and litigants. Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 16 248, 254-55 (1936). If there is a pending proceeding that is independent of but related to the 17 instant federal lawsuit, then in certain circumstances the federal district court may stay the instant 18 lawsuit while the independent proceeding moves forward. Dependable Highway Exp., Inc. v. 19 Navigators Ins. Co., 498 F.3d 1059, 1066 (9th Cir. 2007); Leyva v. Certified Grocers of 20 California, Ltd., 593 F.2d 857, 863 (9th Cir. 1979). The independent proceeding need not be 21 controlling of the instant federal lawsuit to be considered related. Id. at 863-64. Rather, an 22 independent proceeding is related to the instant lawsuit if the proceeding will likely settle and 23 simplify issues in the instant lawsuit. Landis, 299 U.S. at 256. 24 To determine whether to impose a “Landis stay,” the federal district court should weigh the 25 following “competing interests”: (1) whether there is a fair possibility that a stay will cause 26 damage; (2) whether a party may suffer hardship or inequity if a stay is not imposed; and (3) 27 whether a stay will contribute to the orderly course of justice. CMAX, Inc. v. Hall, 300 F.2d 265, 28 268 (9th Cir. 1962). Additionally, a Landis stay (4) cannot be imposed only for judicial economy 1 and (5) cannot be indefinite and result in undue delay.1 Dependable Highway Exp., Inc., 498 F.3d 2 at 1066-67. “The proponent of a stay bears the burden of establishing its need.” Clinton v. Jones, 3 520 U.S. 681, 708 (1997) (citing Landis, 299 U.S. at 255). 4 Here the parties failed to even address their burden, let alone satisfy their burden. In 5 asking the Court to impose a stay, the parties failed to meaningfully address and analyze the five 6 foregoing “interests” that the Court should weigh when considering a Landis stay. And although 7 the parties apparently think otherwise, the burden of establishing the need for a stay is not satisfied 8 simply because the parties stipulated to the stay, although that might be indicative of whether the 9 stay will cause damage to a party. Accordingly, the Court will deny without prejudice the parties’ 10 request for a stay. If the parties wish to successfully renew their request for a Landis stay, then 11 they must meaningfully address the five interests identified in the foregoing legal standard.2 12 Finally, the parties also stipulated that Defendants’ pending motion for judgment on the 13 pleadings, Doc. No. 11, be withdrawn without prejudice. Accordingly, pursuant to the parties’ 14 stipulation, Defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings will be treated by the Court as 15 withdrawn without prejudice. 16 17 ORDER 18 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows: 19 1. Pursuant to Local Rule 123(c), the Clerk of Court shall relate the following two 20 lawsuits to this instant lawsuit: Vasquez, et al. v. Leprino Foods Co., et al., 1:17-cv- 21 00796 and Howell v. Leprino Foods Co., et al., 1:18-cv-01404; 22

23 1 With respect to the “indefiniteness” consideration, the Ninth Circuit looks unfavorably upon stays that lack a specific termination date. Dependable Highway Exp., Inc., 498 F.3d at 1066-67. 24 2 In requesting that the Court stay this lawsuit, the parties erroneously invoked two distinct legal principles that do not 25 apply here: namely, the Colorado River abstention doctrine, which applies only if there is a parallel and pending state lawsuit, and the “first-to-file rule,” which applies only if there is a first-filed lawsuit that involves the “same parties” 26 as the instant lawsuit. See Colorado River Water Conservation Dist. v. United States, 424 U.S. 800, 813 (1976) (ushering in and discussing the Colorado River abstention doctrine); Pacesetter Sys., Inc. v. Medtronic, Inc., 678 F.2d 27 93, 95 (9th Cir. 1982) (discussing the first-to-file rule). While the parties did not specifically invoke Landis as the basis for their requested stay, the Court concludes that Landis is more applicable to the facts here than the Colorado 28 River abstention doctrine and the first-to-file rule. 1 2. The parties’ request to stay this lawsuit (Doc. No. 21) is DENIED without 2 prejudice; and 3 3. Defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings (Doc. No. 11) is WITHDRAWN 4 pursuant to the parties’ stipulation (Doc. No. 21), and the hearing on the motion is 5 VACATED. 6 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 2p g Dated: _ September 10, 2019 Z : Cb □□ — SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28