Bailey

I. BACKGROUND

1 Plaintiffs filed this putative class action on August 14, 2020, asserting breach of fiduciary 2 duties under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”), 29 U.S.C. 1001 3 et seq. Dkt. No. 1. On November 16, 2021, the Court granted in part and denied in part 4 LinkedIn’s motion to dismiss the operative Amended Complaint under Federal Rules of Civil 5 Procedure 12(b)(1) and (6). Dkt. No. 96. In particular, the Court dismissed for lack of standing 6 and for failure to state a claim as to all of Plaintiffs’ theories of liability except for Plaintiffs’ 7 claims based on the Freedom Fidelity funds. Id. 8 On December 16, 2021, Plaintiffs filed the operative SAC. Dkt. No. 99. The parties 9 stipulated to extend LinkedIn’s deadline to respond to the SAC to January 20, 2021. Dkt. No. 10 101. LinkedIn’s motions to stay followed.

II. LEGAL STANDARD

12 District courts have the “discretionary power to stay proceedings.” Lockyer v. Mirant 13 Corp., 398 F.3d 1098, 1109 (9th Cir. 2005) (citing Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 14 (1936)). The power to stay is “incidental to the power inherent in every court to control the 15 disposition of…