Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01811/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01811-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 110
Nature of Suit: Insurance
Cause of Action: 12:635 Breach of Insurance Contract

---

1

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

On September 29, 2016, the Court granted summary judgment to Yarbrough Plastering, 

Inc. and Ricky Yarbrough. (Doc. 42) The Court finds that the order granting summary judgment 

involved a controlling question of law as to which there is substantial ground for difference of 

opinion. The Court finds also there is no just reason to delay appeal. Therefore, according to the 

Court’s authority under Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b), the Court DIRECTS entry of judgment in favor of 

Yarbrough Plastering, Inc. and Ricky Yarbrough and against ProBuilders Specialty Insurance 

Company, RRG.

In addition, the Court’s inherent power to stay its 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. North American Co., 299 U.S. 248, 

PROBUILDERS SPECIALTY INSURANCE 

COMPANY, RRG,

 Plaintiff,

v.

YARBROUGH PLASTERING, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

_________________________________________________

AND RELATED CLAIMS

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:15-CV-01811- JLT

ORDER GRANTING JUDGMENT TO 

YARBROUGH PLASTERING, INC, AND 

RICKY LEE YARBROUGH

ORDER STAYING THE ACTION AS TO THE 

CROSS-COMPLAINT

Case 1:15-cv-01811-JLT Document 51 Filed 10/28/16 Page 1 of 2
2

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

254 (1936); see also Gold v. Johns–Manville Sales Corp., 723 F.2d 1068, 1077 (3d Cir.1983) 

(holding that the power to stay proceedings comes from the power of every court to manage the 

cases on its docket and to ensure a fair and efficient adjudication of the matter at hand). This is best 

accomplished by the “exercise of judgment, which must weigh competing interests and maintain an 

even balance.” Landis, 299 U.S. at 254–55. In determining whether to issue a stay, courts consider 

the potential prejudice to the non-moving party; the hardship or inequity to the moving party if the 

action is not stayed; and the judicial resources that would be saved by simplifying the case or 

avoiding duplicative litigation if the case before the court is stayed. CMAX, Inc. v. Hall, 300 F.2d 

265, 268 (9th Cir.1962). 

Here, the parties agree that the matter of the cross-complaint may be stayed pending the 

outcome of the appeal sought by ProBuilders. (Docs. 44, 46, 47) Notably, the cross-complaint 

becomes operative only if the Court’s judgment is overturned by the Court of Appeals. Given the 

novelty of the issue analyzed by the Court in awarding summary judgment, the outcome of the 

appeal may be uncertain. Thus, Court finds that staying the action will preserve judicial resources, 

the resources of the parties, it will preserve the status quo and will not prejudice any party. 

Accordingly, the matter is STAYED.

ORDER

For the reasons set forth above, the Court ORDERS:

1. The Court DIRECTS entry of judgment in favor of Yarbrough Plastering, Inc. and 

Ricky Yarbrough and against ProBuilders Specialty Insurance Company, RRG;

2. The action is STAYED. No later than 14 days after the decision issued by the 

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, the parties SHALL file a joint statement setting forth the status of 

the matter and whether the stay should be lifted.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 28, 2016 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-01811-JLT Document 51 Filed 10/28/16 Page 2 of 2