Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_04-cv-03946/USCOURTS-cand-5_04-cv-03946-30/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

Darla Padgett, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

City of Monte Sereno, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

NO. C 04-03946 JW 

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND

DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT

BRIAN LOVENTHAL’S EX PARTE

MOTION FOR STAY OF

PROCEEDINGS

On September 4, 2007, the Court ordered terminating sanctions against Defendant Brian

Loventhal for spoliation of evidence. (See Docket Item No. 405.) The Court struck Defendant

Loventhal’s answer and entered default against him. A trial on damages against Defendant

Loventhal is currently scheduled to begin on January 29, 2008. (See Docket Item No. 415.)

Presently before the Court is Defendant Loventhal’s motion to stay all proceedings in this

action pending a ruling on his application for a writ of mandamus filed with the Ninth Circuit Court

of Appeals. (hereafter, “Motion,” Docket Item No. 460.) Defendant Loventhal seeks to vacate the

Court’s order awarding terminating sanctions. (Motion at 1.) Defendant Loventhal contends a stay

is warranted in the interest of judicial economy. (Motion at 4.) 

Plaintiffs oppose Defendant Loventhal’s motion on the grounds that a stay in the proceedings

would create unnecessary delay. (Memorandum in Opposition of Defendant’s Ex Parte Application

for Stay of Proceedings During the Pendency of Defendant Brian Loventhal’s Petition for Writ of

Mandamus Filed with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals at 1, hereafter, “Opposition,” Docket Item

Case 5:04-cv-03946-EJD Document 473 Filed 12/21/07 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

No. 465.) Plaintiffs are concerned that a stay in the action would prevent the completion of

outstanding discovery requests. (Id.)

A potential writ will impact the scope and timing of the trial in this case. Accordingly, the

Court finds its appropriate to stay proceedings with regard to the trial. However, since the writ is

limited to the issue of terminating sanctions as to Defendant Loventhal, even if it is granted, the trial

will proceed on the issues of liability and damages as to both Defendants Loventhal and Wright. 

Thus, the Court find that it is not necessary to stay discovery.

Accordingly, the Court orders as follows:

1. The Court GRANTS Defendant Loventhal’s motion to stay with respect to all trial

proceedings.

2. The Court DENIES Defendant Loventhal’s motion to stay with respect to discovery

and pre-trial matters.

3. The Court VACATES all trial and pretrial dates.

Defendants shall file with the Court a Case Management Statement within ten (10) days from the

date of the Ninth Circuit’s decision. The Court will set a Further Pretrial Conference once a

mandate is issued.

Dated: December 20, 2007 

JAMES WARE

United States District Judge

Case 5:04-cv-03946-EJD Document 473 Filed 12/21/07 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT COPIES OF THIS ORDER HAVE BEEN DELIVERED TO:

Darla Kaye Padgett Actiontkr@aol.com

Joseph C. Howard jhoward@hrmrlaw.com

Thomas H R Denver tdenver@mediationmasters.com

Todd Holton Master tmaster@hrmrlaw.com

Dated: December 20, 2007 Richard W. Wieking, Clerk

By: /s/ JW Chambers 

Elizabeth Garcia

Courtroom Deputy

Case 5:04-cv-03946-EJD Document 473 Filed 12/21/07 Page 3 of 3