Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_23-cv-00500/USCOURTS-caed-1_23-cv-00500-11/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Other Civil Rights

---

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

FRESNO DIVISION

A.G., a minor, by and through her guardian ad 

litem Johana Yolanda Corral Galvan, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

vs.

COUNTY OF TULARE, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 1:23-cv-00500-JLT-SKO

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY CASE 

SHOULD NOT BE STAYED

(Doc. 60)

On November 15, 2024, Wellpath, LLC filed a “Notice of Filing Bankruptcy” requesting 

the case against all defendants be stayed during the pendency of Defendant Wellpath, LLC’s 

bankruptcy proceedings. (Doc. 58). On November 16, 2024, the Court stayed Plaintiffs’ claims 

against Defendant Wellpath, LLC pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362(a), but declined to stay the claims 

against the non-debtor defendants. (Doc. 59); see In re Miller, 262 B.R. 499, 503–04 & n.6 (B.A.P. 

9th Cir. 2001) (holding that section 362(a) does not empower bankruptcy courts to stay proceedings 

against non-debtor defendants); In re Silverman, 616 F.3d 1001, 1005 n.1 (9th Cir. 2010) (holding 

that non-bankruptcy courts should “treat the BAP’s decisions as persuasive authority given its 

special expertise in bankruptcy issues and to promote uniformity of bankruptcy law throughout the 

Ninth Circuit”); see also Acosta v. Valley Garlic, Inc., No. 116CV01156AWIEPG, 2017 WL 

3641761, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 24, 2017), on reconsideration, No. 116CV01156AWIEPG, 2018 

WL 288017 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 4, 2018) (citing In re Miller and declining to stay proceedings against 

non-debtor defendants).

Case 1:23-cv-00500-JLT-SKO Document 61 Filed 12/10/24 Page 1 of 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

2

On November 26, 2024, Defendants filed a “Joint Amended Suggestion of Bankruptcy and 

Notice of Stay,” again requesting that the Court stay the proceedings in toto. (Doc. 60). Because 

the Court is persuaded by In re Miller, it again declines to stay the case against the non-debtor 

defendants pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362(a).

However, district courts have the inherent power to stay a lawsuit. Landis v. N. Am. Co., 

299 U.S. 248, 254–55 (1936). If an independent and related case is pending, in certain 

circumstances federal courts may stay the instant suit while the independent proceeding moves 

forward. Dependable Highway Exp., Inc. v. Navigators Ins. Co., 498 F.3d 1059, 1066 (9th Cir. 

2007); Leyva v. Certified Grocers of California, Ltd., 593 F.2d 857, 863 (9th Cir. 1979). 

To determine whether a Landis stay is appropriate, courts weigh the following competing 

interests: (1) whether there is a fair possibility that a stay will cause damage; (2) whether a party 

may suffer hardship or inequity if a stay is not imposed; and (3) whether a stay will contribute to 

the orderly course of justice. CMAX, Inc. v. Hall, 300 F.2d 265, 268 (9th Cir. 1962). Additionally, 

a Landis stay (4) cannot be imposed only for judicial economy and (5) cannot be indefinite and 

result in undue delay. Dependable Highway Exp., Inc., 498 F.3d at 1066–67. A stay may be the 

most efficient and fairest course when there are “independent proceedings which bear upon the 

case.” Leyva v. Certified Grocers of Cal., Ltd., 593 F.2d 857, 863 (9th Cir. 1979). 

In light of the pending bankruptcy proceeding, is HEREBY ORDERED that, within 

fourteen (14) days of service of this order, Plaintiffs shall show cause as to why the entire action

should not be stayed until the bankruptcy proceeding in the related case is resolved. Plaintiffs are

warned that an inadequate or lack of response may result in a recommendation to stay the action.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 9, 2024 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto .

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:23-cv-00500-JLT-SKO Document 61 Filed 12/10/24 Page 2 of 2