Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-01842/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-01842-8/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1446pr Petition for Removal

---

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

DEAN BEAVER, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

CASE NO. 11CV1842-GPC(KSC)

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’

MOTION FOR STAY PENDING

FILING AND DISPOSITION OF

PETITION FOR WRIT OF

CERTIORARI

[Dkt. No. 193.]

vs.

TARSADIA HOTELS, et als.,

Defendants,

On April 4, 2016, the Ninth Circuit issued its mandate affirming the Court’s

order on summary judgment. (Dkt. No. 191.) On the same day, this Court lifted the

stay that was imposed in the case. (Dkt. No. 192.) On April 5, 2016, Defendants filed

a notice of intent to file a petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Supreme

Court and a request for continuation of stay. (Dkt. No. 193.) Plaintiffs filed an

opposition on April 7, 2016. (Dkt. No. 196.) 

Discussion

In the exercise of its inherent authority to control its own docket, the Court may

stay a case. See Leyva v. Certified Grocers of Cal., Ltd., 593 F.2d 857, 863 (9th Cir.

1979) (“A trial court may, with propriety, find it is efficient for its own docket and the

fairest course for the parties to enter a stay of an action before it, pending resolution of

- 1 - [11CV1842-GPC(KSC)]

Case 3:11-cv-01842-GPC-KSC Document 198 Filed 04/19/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 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

independent proceedings which bear upon the case”). When considering a motion to

stay pending appeal, courts consider:

(1) whether the stay applicant has made a strong showing that he is

likely to succeed on the merits; (2) whether the applicant will be

irreparably injured absent a stay; (3) whether issuance of the stay will

substantially injure the other parties interested in the proceedings; and

(4) where the public interest lies.

Golden Gate Rest. Ass’n v. City & Cnty. of San Francisco, 512 F.3d 1112, 1115 (9th

Cir. 2008) (quoting Hilton v. Braunskill, 481 U.S. 770, 776 (1987)). In other words,

satisfying steps (1) and (2) requires proof of either “a probability of success on the

merits and the possibility of irreparable injury to [the applicant]” or a showing “that

serious legal questions are raised and that the balance of hardships tips sharply in [the

moving party’s] favor.” Id. at 1115-16 (internal quotations and citations omitted).

“These two formulations represent two points on a sliding scale in which the required

degree of irreparable harm increases as the probability of success decreases.” Id. at

1116 (citation omitted). 

Defendants seek a continuation of the stay for the same reasons the Court issued

a stay on October 29, 2014 “because resolution of the issue will likely alter the

direction of the current proceedings and a stay would promote efficiency and economy

of time for the Court and for the parties.” (Dkt. No. 177.) Plaintiffs oppose contending

that Defendants have not demonstrated a probability of success on the merits and

cannot show they will suffer irreparable harm. Instead, Plaintiffs argue that a

continuance of the stay will substantially injure them as they obtained summary

judgment asto liability almost two years ago and Plaintiffs are still coping with balloon

loan payments and/or increased payments due to Defendants’ failure to rescind the

contract. 

In their motion, Defendants fail to address the relevant factors in seeking a

motion for a stay pending appeal and have therefore failed to meet their burden. 

Defendants have not demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits and have not

shown that they will suffer irreparable harm. In contrast, Plaintiffs argue that they are

- 2 - [11CV1842-GPC(KSC)]

Case 3:11-cv-01842-GPC-KSC Document 198 Filed 04/19/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 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

currently and will continue to suffer substantial injury based on Defendants’ failure to

rescind the contract. Moreover, the Court notes that the public interest lies in having

this five year old case resolved expeditiously. Therefore, in balancing the stay factors,

the Court DENIES Defendants’ motion for a stay. The Court sets a status conference

on May 13, 2016 at 1:30 p.m. On or before May 6, 2016, the parties shall file a joint

statement suggesting how the case should proceed after the Ninth Circuit’s ruling, and

identifying issues the parties wish to raise at the status conference. 

1

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: April 19, 2016

HON. GONZALO P. CURIEL

United States District Judge

Defendants also state that Third Party Defendant Greenberg Traurig, LLP joins 1

in Defendants’ motion for a continuation of a stay. However, on April 4, 2016, the

Court did not lift the stay on the Third Party Complaint. (Dkt. No. 192.) The stay on

the Third Party Complaint remains in effect. (Dkt. No. 152.) 

- 3 - [11CV1842-GPC(KSC)]

Case 3:11-cv-01842-GPC-KSC Document 198 Filed 04/19/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3