Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-00002/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-00002-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 820
Nature of Suit: Copyright
Cause of Action: 17:0101 Copyright Infringement (definitions)

---

1

18cv02-MMA (JLB)

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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BARRY ROSEN,

Plaintiff,

v.

EBAY INC.,

Defendant.

Case No.: 18cv02-MMA (JLB)

ORDER GRANTING JOINT 

MOTION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS

[Doc. No. 34]

On June 25, 2018, Plaintiff Barry Rosen, proceeding pro se, and Defendant eBay, 

Inc. jointly filed a motion to stay the proceedings until August 24, 2018 “to allow the 

parties to attempt to reach a settlement.” Doc. No. 34 at 2.

“[T]he power to stay proceedings is incidental to the power inherent in every court 

to control disposition of the causes on its docket with economy of time and effort for 

itself, for counsel, and for litigants.” Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936). 

“The exertion of this power calls for the exercise of sound discretion.” CMAX, Inc. v. 

Hall, 300 F.2d 265, 268 (9th Cir. 1962). In determining whether to grant a stay, “the 

competing interests [that] will be affected by the granting or refusal to grant a stay must 

be weighed.” Lockyer v. Mirant Corp., 398 F.3d 1098, 1110 (9th Cir. 2005) (citing 

CMAX, Inc., 300 F.2d at 268). Those interests include: (1) “the possible damage which 

may result from the granting of a stay,” (2) “the hardship or inequity which a party may 

Case 3:18-cv-00002-MMA-JLB Document 35 Filed 06/26/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 2
2

18cv02-MMA (JLB)

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

suffer in being required to go forward,” and (3) “the orderly course of justice measured in 

terms of the simplifying or complicating of issues, proof, and questions of law which 

could be expected to result from a stay.” Id.

Here, a stay until August 24, 2018 is warranted. There is little to no damage that 

may result from granting the requested stay because discovery has not commenced and 

the parties are attempting to reach a settlement. See Docket; see also Doc. No. 34 at 2. 

Additionally, requiring the parties to go forward in this case may harm the parties attempt 

to settle and waste legal and judicial resources. See Doc. No. 34 at 2 (granting the stay 

“would promote the preservation of both legal and judicial resources while the parties 

attempt to settle the case”). Finally, granting a stay promotes the orderly course of justice 

by permitting the parties to resolve the case on the merits. See id. Accordingly, the 

Court GRANTS the parties’ joint motion and extends the currently pending deadlines as 

follows:

1. Plaintiff’s opposition to Defendant’s motion to dismiss, if any, must be filed 

on or before August 24, 2018.

2. Defendant’s reply brief in support of its motion to dismiss, if any, must be 

filed on or before August 31, 2018.

3. Defendant’s opposition to Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend, if any, must 

be filed on or before September 7, 2018.

4. Plaintiff’s reply brief in support of his motion for leave to amend, if any, 

must be filed on or before September 14, 2018.

Upon completion of the briefings, the Court will take the matters under submission 

on the papers and issue written rulings in due course.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 26, 2018

Case 3:18-cv-00002-MMA-JLB Document 35 Filed 06/26/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2