Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01649/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01649-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 370
Nature of Suit: Other Fraud
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Fraud

---

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

At the hearing on the motion to change venue, the Court learned that in the similar matter, 

Mouzon, et al., v. Radiancy, Inc., et al., case number 1:15-cv-1142 CKK, proceeding in the United 

States District Court in the District of Columbia, Defendants have filed a motion to dismiss. This 

motion is based upon statute of limitations grounds, which, if successful, would fully dispose of that 

case. The Mouzon parties have fully briefed the motion to dismiss and they have been awaiting a 

decision by the court for several months. 

Clearly, if the D.C. court dismisses the Mouzon action, this would moot the change of venue 

currently confronting the Court. Alternatively, if the Court grants the transfer request and then the 

D.C. court grants the motion to dismiss in Mouzon, the Cantley matter would be orphaned in D.C. 

without any justification for proceeding in that forum. Thus, the Court finds that staying the matter 

pending the D.C. court’s decision would resolve that conundrum.

A district court has the inherent power to stay its proceedings. This power to stay is 

APRIL CANTLEY, individually and behalf 

of all other similarly situated,

 Plaintiff,

v.

RADIANCY, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:15-cv-01649 - LJO – JLT

ORDER STAYING CASE

Case 1:15-cv-01649-LJO-JLT Document 30 Filed 05/09/16 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

“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, 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). 

The Court finds the parties’ and the Court’s resources would be preserved if the matter was 

stayed pending a determination of whether the Mouzon matter will be dismissed. Moreover, the Court 

is unaware of any hardship or inequity that would result thereby. Thus, the Court ORDERS:

1. The case is STAYED;

2. Every 60 days, the parties SHALL file a joint report setting forth the status of the 

matter and detailing whether the Court should lift the stay;

3. Within 10 days of the decision on the pending motion to dismiss issued in the Mouzon

matter, counsel SHALL file a joint report setting forth the outcome of the motion to dismiss;

4. All pending dates and hearings are VACATED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 9, 2016 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-01649-LJO-JLT Document 30 Filed 05/09/16 Page 2 of 2