Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_13-cv-04507/USCOURTS-cand-5_13-cv-04507-10/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:2000e Job Discrimination (Employment)

---

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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY 

COMMISSION,

Plaintiff,

v.

PETERS' BAKERY,

Defendant.

Case No. 13-cv-04507-BLF 

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S 

SECOND MOTION TO STAY 

PROCEEDINGS

[Re: ECF 109]

Before the Court is defendant Peters’ Bakery’s Second Administrative Motion to Extend 

the Stay of Case, ECF 109, whereby Defendant seeks to continue the stay of proceedings in this 

action pending resolution of Defendant’s February 13, 2015 petition for writ of mandamus to the 

United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. By way of background, the Court 

disqualified Defendant’s counsel on December 22, 2014 and stayed proceedings for 30 days to 

allow Defendant to retain new counsel. See ECF 103. Defendant then sought an extension of the 

stay in order to prepare its petition for writ of mandamus, which this Court granted on January 14, 

2015. See ECF 107. By its own terms, the extended stay was lifted on February 13, 2015. See id. 

For the reasons stated herein, the Court DENIES Defendant’s motion. 

“A party seeking a stay must establish that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is 

likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of relief, that the balance of equities tip in his 

favor, and that a stay is in the public interest.” Humane Soc. of U.S. v. Gutierrez, 558 F.3d 896,

896 (9th Cir. 2009). The factors are similar to those considered when issuing a preliminary 

injunction because “similar concerns arise whenever a court order may allow or disallow 

anticipated action before the legality of that action has been conclusively determined.” Nken v. 

Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 434 (2009). “The first two factors of the traditional standard are the most 

Case 5:13-cv-04507-BLF Document 114 Filed 03/04/15 Page 1 of 3
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

critical,” and “[i]t is not enough that the chance of success on the merits be better than negligible.” 

Id. (internal quotations and citations omitted). In this circuit, a stay may also issue where “the 

likelihood of success is such that serious questions going to the merits were raised and the balance 

of hardships tips sharply in [] favor [of the party requesting a stay],” provided that the irreparable 

harm and public interest factors are also satisfied. Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 

F.3d 1127, 1131 (9th Cir. 2011) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). Under either 

standard, “[t]he party requesting a stay bears the burden of showing that the circumstances justify 

an exercise of that discretion.” Nken, 556 U.S. at 433-34.

Defendant has not demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits of its petition for writ 

of mandamus, nor even a serious question going to the merits. “The remedy of mandamus is a 

drastic one, to be invoked only in extraordinary situations.” Kerr v. U.S. Dist. Court, 426 U.S. 

394, 402 (1976). “[T]he district court has the prime responsibility for controlling the conduct of 

lawyers practicing before it, and [] an order disqualifying counsel will not be disturbed if the 

record reveals ‘any sound’ basis for the district court’s action.” In re Coordinated Pretrial 

Proceedings in Petroleum Prods. Antitrust Litig., 658 F.2d 1355, 1358 (9th Cir. 1981) (citing 

Gas–A–Tron of Ariz. v. Union Oil Co. of Cal., 534 F.2d 1322, 1325 (9th Cir. 1976)); see also In re 

Atoptech, Inc., 565 F. App’x 912, 913 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (applying Ninth Circuit law to deny

mandamus petition challenging district court’s disqualification of counsel). This Court conducted 

an evidentiary hearing, made findings of fact, and applied prevailing state law to those facts in 

disqualifying Defendant’s counsel from this action. Defendant may dispute the Court’s 

conclusions from that exercise, but given the extraordinarily high standard for mandamus, this 

Court is not persuaded that Defendant has raised any serious question on the merits of its petition 

to the Ninth Circuit, let alone demonstrated a likelihood of success.

Recognizing the difficulty that a district court faces in determining the likelihood of a 

party’s success in overturning its own prior ruling, the undersigned has reviewed the parties’ 

arguments with a careful eye to the balance of hardships and potential injury to Defendant from 

having to continue litigating this action with new counsel. The disqualification of a party’s firstchoice counsel is unquestionably harmful. See Cole v. U.S. Dist. Court For Dist. of Idaho, 366 

Case 5:13-cv-04507-BLF Document 114 Filed 03/04/15 Page 2 of 3
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

F.3d 813, 817 (9th Cir. 2004). However, fact discovery in this action has not concluded—in fact, 

this Court stayed discovery on October 30, 2014 pending resolution of the disqualification motion, 

which disrupted a number of scheduled depositions—and trial is not set to begin until July. Any 

potential harm to Defendant from having to choose new counsel can be mitigated by adjustments 

to the case schedule. Moreover, Plaintiff and the charging party also have an interest in 

completing discovery and obtaining timely justice, and it would be extremely prejudicial to them 

to stay this action indefinitely pending a decision from the Ninth Circuit on Defendant’s 

mandamus petition. Based on the foregoing, the Court concludes that a further stay of 

proceedings would not be in the interest of justice, and Defendant’s Second Administrative 

Motion to Extend the Stay of Case is DENIED.

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 8(a)(2), Defendant may seek a stay from 

the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. This action shall proceed, and fact discovery shall re-open on 

March 25, 2015. Unless Defendant has obtained a stay from the Ninth Circuit by that date, the 

Court expects new counsel to enter an appearance and work expeditiously with Plaintiff to 

conclude discovery. The parties are encouraged to meet and confer after the re-opening of 

discovery to assess whether any adjustments need to be made to the case schedule. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 4, 2015

______________________________________

BETH LABSON FREEMAN

United States District Judge

Case 5:13-cv-04507-BLF Document 114 Filed 03/04/15 Page 3 of 3