Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-05761/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-05761-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 470
Nature of Suit: Civil (Rico)
Cause of Action: 18:1964 Racketeering (RICO) Act

---

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

SAN JOSE DIVISION

GREG STEVEN ELOFSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

STEPHANIE BIVENS, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 15-cv-05761-BLF 

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO STAY

[Re: ECF 28]

Plaintiff Greg Steven Elofson’s Motion to Stay, filed March 8, 2016 and docketed as ECF 

28, is DENIED for the reasons discussed below. 

 I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Greg Steven Elofson, proceeding pro se, filed this action on December 16, 2015, 

challenging Arizona state court orders relating to the guardianship and conservatorship of his 

father, Milo Elofson. See Compl., ECF 1. Plaintiff expressly seeks relief from those Arizona state 

court orders under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60, and he asserts numerous related federal and 

state law claims arising out of alleged civil rights violations, human trafficking, racketeering, 

breach of fiduciary duty, attorney malpractice, defamation, negligent infliction of emotional 

distress, elder abuse, and abuse of process. See id. 

Between January 31, 2016 and February 22, 2016, Plaintiff filed a motion for appointment 

of counsel, a motion for leave to amend his complaint, and an application for a temporary 

restraining order (“TRO”). See Motion for App’t of Counsel, ECF 8; Motion for Leave to Amend, 

ECF 18; Applic. for TRO, ECF 20. On February 24, 2016, this Court issued an order denying the 

motion for appointment of counsel and the application for a TRO and granting the motion for 

leave to amend the complaint. See Order, ECF 23. Plaintiff timely filed an amended complaint on 

Case 5:15-cv-05761-BLF Document 31 Filed 03/09/16 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

March 9, 2016. See First Am’d Compl., ECF 29.

On February 29, 2016, the Court denied Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a motion for 

reconsideration of the Court’s denial of his application for a TRO. See Order Denying Motion for 

Leave to File Motion for Reconsideration, ECF 25.

 II. MOTION TO STAY

On March 8, 2016, Plaintiff filed the present Motion to Stay, indicating that Plaintiff 

“moves to stay the court’s judgment while Plaintiff appeals and files an Emergency Motion under 

Fed. R. App. P. Circuit Rule 27-3 with the Ninth Circuit.” Motion to Stay at 2, ECF 28. As set 

forth above, this Court has not issued a judgment in this case. To the contrary, the Court granted 

Plaintiff leave to amend his complaint, and Plaintiff timely filed the operative First Amended 

Complaint in this action on March 9, 2016. Magistrate Judge Howard Lloyd, to whom this case 

previously was assigned, granted Plaintiff leave to proceed in this action in forma pauperis. See

Order Granting Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis and Permission to Participate in Electronic 

Case Filing, ECF 6. Pursuant to that order, once Plaintiff provides the Clerk with the names and 

addresses of all Defendants to be served, the Clerk will issue summons, and service of process will 

be effected by the United States Marshal for the Northern District of California. Because the 

litigation is ongoing, and no judgment has been issued, Plaintiff’s motion for a stay of judgment is 

DENIED.

Although Plaintiff’s motion is framed as a motion to stay the Court’s “judgment,” see

Motion to Stay at 2, ECF 28, the last line of the motion requests a “stay of proceedings, see id. at 

21. To the extent that Plaintiff requests a stay of the entire litigation, the request is governed by 

the standards set forth by the United States Supreme Court in Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248 

(1936). “[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.” Id. at 254. A district court’s decision to grant or deny a Landis stay is 

a matter of discretion. Lockyer v. Mirant Corp., 398 F.3d 1098, 1109 (9th Cir. 2005). The 

moving party has the burden of proving such a stay is justified. Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 

708 (1997). 

Case 5:15-cv-05761-BLF Document 31 Filed 03/09/16 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

Determining whether to grant a Landis stay requires the district court to weigh the 

competing interests affected by either granting or denying the motion. CMAX, Inc. v. Hall, 300 

F.2d 265, 268 (9th Cir. 1962) (citing Landis, 299 U.S. at 254-55). “Among these competing 

interests are (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.” Id. 

Plaintiff’s motion does not address these factors. The Court observes that for the most 

part, the motion simply disputes this Court’s determination that Plaintiff’s TRO application failed 

to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits because his claims are barred by the RookerFeldman doctrine. Plaintiff’s unsuccessful motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration 

was based upon that very point. Plaintiff’s attempt to reargue the issue in the present motion is 

inappropriate. Because Plaintiff has failed to meet his burden of establishing a basis for staying 

the litigation, any intended motion for such a stay is DENIED. 

 III. ORDER

Plaintiff’s Motion to Stay is DENIED.

Dated: March 9, 2016

 ______________________________________

BETH LABSON FREEMAN

United States District Judge

Case 5:15-cv-05761-BLF Document 31 Filed 03/09/16 Page 3 of 3