Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_99-cv-01275/USCOURTS-caed-2_99-cv-01275-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 410
Nature of Suit: Antitrust
Cause of Action: 15:1 Antitrust Litigation

---

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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JIJIBHOY J. PATEL, et al.,

Plaintiffs, No. CIV S-99-1275 RRB EFB PS

vs.

DAMERON HOSPITAL, et al., 

ORDER DENYING STAY

Defendants. 

 /

This case, in which plaintiffs are proceeding in propria persona, is before the

undersigned pursuant to Local Rule 72-302(c)(21). See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

This action was stayed on April 23, 2002, by order of the previously assigned magistrate

judge due to the pendency of plaintiffs’ bankruptcy proceedings. On October 2, 2007, plaintiffs

filed a notice with the court that the bankruptcy proceedings were no longer pending, and

requested permission to proceed with discovery. Plaintiffs requested a discovery conference,

which they noticed for hearing on October 24, 2007. Given the long period of inaction in this

case, the court ordered the parties to submit status reports to the court, and a conference was held

on November 14, 2007. At the conference, the case’s status was discussed and the court

indicated its intention to revisit the findings and recommendations previously filed by Magistrate

Judge Peter A. Nowinski (Ret.), which recommended dismissal as to several defendants, and to

Case 2:99-cv-01275-JAM-EFB Document 122 Filed 02/01/08 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 1

 The first and second requests are identical.

2

consider the pending Rule 12(b)(6) motions. 

 The matter was submitted, and in the interim, plaintiffs have filed two ex parte requests

to stay this action. Plaintiffs request a stay so that defense counsel can consider plaintiffs’ offer

to settle the case, and so that plaintiffs can find an attorney who will accept this case on a

contingency basis. Plaintiffs also indicate that they will be traveling in India during January

2008. 

Defendants Dameron Hospital Association, Meherji Oshtory, M.D., Luis Arismendi,

M.D., Steven Laviola, M.D., Grewal, David Judge, M.D., Fram Buhari, M.D., Alvin Cacho,

M.D., and Chen Liem, M.D., have filed objections to the first ex parte request to stay the action.1

They cite plaintiffs’ more than year-long delay in notifying the court that the bankruptcy

proceedings had concluded, and argue that further delay is unnecessary in light of this court’s

forthcoming findings and recommendations. 

“A district court has discretionary power to stay proceedings in its own court. Lockyer v.

Mirant Corp., 398 F.3d 1098, 1109 (9th Cir. 2005) (citing Landis v. North American Co., 299

U.S. 248, 254 (1936)). A court must weigh the competing interests which will be affected by

ruling on the stay. Id., at 1110 (citing CMAX, Inc. v. Hall, 300 F.2d 265 (9th Cir. 1962)). 

Among those competing interests are the possible damage which

may result from the granting of a stay, the hardship or inequity

which a party may suffer in being required to go forward, and the

orderly course of justice measured in terms of the simplifying or

complicating of issues, proof, and questions of law which could be

expected to result from a stay.

Id., at 1110 (quoting CMAX, Inc., 300 F.2d at 268). 

Plaintiffs have made no showing that they would suffer a hardship or inequity should the

court proceed to issue findings and recommendations on the motions to dismiss submitted more

than seven years ago. For this reason, and in light of the already long delay that has plagued this

Case 2:99-cv-01275-JAM-EFB Document 122 Filed 02/01/08 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

3

case (due, in part, to plaintiffs’ failure to timely advise the court that the bankruptcy proceedings

had concluded), the court finds no good cause for imposing another stay. Accordingly, the

request for a stay is denied. The court’s decision on the pending motions to dismiss will be

forthcoming in separately filed findings and recommendations. 

SO ORDERED.

DATED: January 31, 2008.

Case 2:99-cv-01275-JAM-EFB Document 122 Filed 02/01/08 Page 3 of 3