Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_18-cv-06071/USCOURTS-cand-4_18-cv-06071-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question: Personal Injury

---

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

DERRICK LUCKEY, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF 

THE NAVY, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 18-cv-06071-HSG 

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 

STAY

Re: Dkt. No. 23

Plaintiffs Derrick and Annette Luckey, proceeding pro se, filed this motion to stay pending

the resolution of a legislative proposal that “will have a direct and immediate impact on this 

litigation” if enacted by Congress. Dkt. No. 23 (“Mot.”). The government does not oppose the 

motion, as long as the stay is “entered for a reasonable period of time.” Dkt. No. 26. Specifically, 

the government requests a limited stay of ninety (90) days. Id. The Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ 

motion and STAYS this action.

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs, executors of their daughter Danyelle A. Luckey’s (“Ms. Luckey’s”) estate, filed 

this action against the United States and the United States Department of the Navy, alleging that 

Defendants’ failure to treat Ms. Luckey proximately caused her death. Dkt. No. 1 (“Compl.”). 

Ms. Luckey was a Personnel Assistant in the U.S. Navy and passed away onboard the U.S.S. 

Ronald Reagan. Id. ¶ 6–8. A threshold dispute in this case is whether the Supreme Court’s 

holding in Feres v. United States, 340 U.S. 135 (1950), precludes Plaintiffs from bringing suit 

against the government. In Feres, the Supreme Court held that the government could not be liable 

“for injuries to servicemen where the injuries arise out of or are in the course of activity incident to 

Case 4:18-cv-06071-HSG Document 28 Filed 08/28/19 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

service.” 340 U.S. at 146. Plaintiffs argue that Feres does not apply because Ms. Luckey was ill 

when she first came aboard the U.S.S. Reagan and passed away due to the medical staff’s alleged 

failure to treat her, such that her case does not “involve ‘injuries or death sustained in activities 

incident to military service.’” Compl. ¶ 18. Defendants argue that Feres applies and bars this 

action. Dkt. No. 27 ¶ 1 (Defendants’ Answer). 

On April 30, 2019, several House representatives introduced H.R. 2422, the Sergeant First 

Class Richard Stayskal Military Medical Accountability Act of 2019, which if passed would 

overturn Feres and allow military servicemembers to sue the government for instances of medical 

malpractice. H.R. 2422, 116th Cong. (2019). H.R. 2500, the National Defense Authorization Act 

for Fiscal Year 2020 (“NDAA 2020”), incorporates the proposed bill. H.R. 2500, 116th Cong. 

(2019). NDAA 2020 was introduced on May 2, 2019, and passed the House on July 12, 2019. 

165 Cong. Rec. H5733–43, H5750–64. It is now currently before the Senate. See id. 

II. LEGAL STANDARD

“[T]he power to stay proceedings is 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. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936). In considering 

whether to issue a stay, courts weigh: (1) “the possible damage which may result from the granting 

of a stay,” (2) “the hardship or inequity which a party may suffer in being required to go forward,” 

and (3) “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.” CMAX, Inc. v. 

Hall, 300 F.2d 265, 268 (9th Cir. 1962) (citing Landis, 299 U.S. at 254-55). Whether to stay an 

action is a matter entrusted to the discretion of the district court. See Landis, 299 U.S. at 254 

(“How this can best be done calls for the exercise of judgment, which must weigh competing 

interests and maintain an even balance.”). 

III. DISCUSSION

Plaintiffs request that this action be stayed for a period that is the shorter of (a) completion 

of the current 116th Congressional session, or (b) a determination as to H.R. 2422. Mot. at 2. 

Given the posture of NDAA 2020 and H.R. 2422 in the legislative process, the Court finds it 

Case 4:18-cv-06071-HSG Document 28 Filed 08/28/19 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

appropriate in its discretion to stay the case. 

As to the first factor, the Court finds it unlikely that a stay would cause harm to either 

party. Defendants do not oppose the stay. Dkt. No. 26. With respect to the second factor, 

Plaintiffs would suffer potential hardship and inequity if required to proceed, given that Congress 

is considering a new law that, if passed, could provide Plaintiffs with a claim that may be barred 

under current law.1 For this same reason, the third factor favors a stay: a central dispute before 

the Court is whether Feres applies, and passage of the NDAA 2020 would clarify (or even 

conclusively resolve) that question. Staying this case for a limited time to see whether the bill 

passes will preserve the judicial and party resources that otherwise would be spent litigating this

issue in the meantime. 

IV. CONCLUSION

Until otherwise ordered, this case is STAYED pending Congress’s passage or rejection of

NDAA 2020. The parties are DIRECTED to submit a joint status report within five days of such 

passage or rejection. If passage or rejection does not occur within ninety (90) days, the parties are 

directed to submit a joint status report updating the Court on the status of the legislation.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 8/28/2019

______________________________________

HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.

United States District Judge

1 At this stage, the Court cannot and does not reach any conclusions about how Feres might apply 

to Plaintiffs’ claims, either now or if the proposed legislation passes. But it appears beyond 

dispute that if passed, the law might well change the applicable legal standard substantially. 

Case 4:18-cv-06071-HSG Document 28 Filed 08/28/19 Page 3 of 3