Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-02524/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-02524-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights (Employment Discrimination)

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1 Case No. 3:12 CV 2524 BTM BGS

ORDER REGARDING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO STAY

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

STEVEN D. STEIN

Plaintiff,

v.

TRI-CITY HEALTHCARE 

DISTRICT, a California healthcare 

district, LARRY B. ANDERSON an 

individual

Defendants.

Case No. 3:12 CV 2524 BTM BGS

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ 

MOTION TO STAY

Complaint Filed: June 4, 2013

Trial Date: Stayed

On February 20, 2014, Defendant Tri-City Healthcare District (“Tri-City”) 

filed an ex parte application to stay the entire action and all discovery pending its

appeal of the Court’s denial of Tri-City’s special motion to strike Plaintiff’s 13th and 

14th claims for relief contained in the first amended complaint (Docket No. 122). 

Without prejudice, the Court denied the ex parte application and set a briefing 

schedule to consider Tri-City’s Motion to Stay. (Docket No. 124.) On March 4, 

Case 3:12-cv-02524-BTM-BGS Document 166 Filed 04/18/14 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2 Case No. 3:12 CV 2524 BTM BGS

ORDER REGARDING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO STAY

2014, Defendant Larry Anderson filed a notice of joinder in Tri-City’s motion to 

stay. (Docket No. 131.)

After briefing from all parties, the motion to stay came on for hearing before 

this Court at 2:00 p.m. on March 18, 2014. All parties were represented by counsel 

at the hearing and provided the opportunity to make oral argument. After 

considering all matters submitted by the parties and all oral argument, the Court 

GRANTS Defendants’ motion to stay.

An appeal divests the Court of jurisdiction over the matters on appeal. Griggs 

v. Provident Consumer Discount Co., 459 U.S. 56, 58 (1982). The Court also has 

the inherent power to issue a discretionary stay of proceedings pending a collateral 

appeal, where a stay would prevent hardship or inequity, and promote the orderly 

course of justice measured in terms of simplifying of issues, proof, and questions of 

law. Lockyer v. Mirant Corp., 398 F.3d 1098, 1110 (9th Cir. 2005). For these 

reasons, the Court grants Defendants’ motion to stay as follows:

1. The July 21, 2014 trial date and July 9, 2014 pretrial conference set by 

the First Amended Case Management Conference Order (Docket No. 113) are

vacated and will be set after resolution of Defendants’ appeal of the Order Denying 

Defendants’ Special Motions to Strike (Docket No. 110) (“Defendants’ Appeal”).

The dates set for trial, the pretrial conference, and the dates related to the pretrial 

conference are hereby vacated pending resolution of the Appeal.

Case 3:12-cv-02524-BTM-BGS Document 166 Filed 04/18/14 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3 Case No. 3:12 CV 2524 BTM BGS

ORDER REGARDING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO STAY

2. All proceedings and discovery explicitly related to Plaintiff’s 13th and 

14th claims for relief alleged in the first amended complaint are stayed until 

Defendants’ Appeal is resolved.

3. All other discovery and pretrial motions scheduled in the March 25, 

2014 Second Amended Case Management Conference Order (Docket No. 145) or 

already scheduled by this Court, except as modified by paragraphs 1 and 2 of this 

Order, shall proceed as currently scheduled. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 18, 2014 __________________________

BARRY TED MOSKOWITZ, 

Chief Judge, United States District Court

Case 3:12-cv-02524-BTM-BGS Document 166 Filed 04/18/14 Page 3 of 3