A.M.Q.A.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 A.M.Q.A, et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-01556-JLT-EPG 12 Plaintiffs, ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’

MOTION TO STAY

13 v. (ECF No. 91) 14 LUGO, et al.,

15 Defendants. 16 17 Defendants filed a motion to stay this case on February 16, 2024. (ECF No. 91.) To date, 18 Plaintiffs have not filed an opposition. Defendants request a sixty-day stay as the parties engage 19 in “discussions over potential resolution of this case.” (Id. at 2.) Defendants also request that all 20 pending dates and deadlines be vacated. According to the motion, Plaintiffs do not oppose the 21 stay. (Id.) 22 District courts have broad discretion in deciding whether to stay a case. See Landis v. N. 23 Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936) (“[T]he power to stay proceedings is incidental to the power 24 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.”). The moving party has the burden to show that 25 a stay is…