Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_20-cv-00635/USCOURTS-caed-2_20-cv-00635-16/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights 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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

STACIA LANGLEY, et al., 

Plaintiffs,

v.

GUIDING HANDS SCHOOL, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:20-cv-00635-TLN-KJN

ORDER

This matter is before the Court on the following motions: Yolo County Office of 

Education, Carolynne Beno, and Sharon Holstege’s (collectively, “Yolo Defendants”) Motion to 

Dismiss (ECF No. 135); Kimberly Wohlwend’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 136); Davis Joint 

Unified School District (“DJSUD”), Jennifer Galas, Patrick McGrew, Riley Chessman 

(collectively, “Davis Defendants”), Elk Grove Unified School District (“EGUSD”), Elk Grove 

Unified SELPA (“Elk Grove SELPA”), Marilyn Delgado, Doug Phillips (collectively, “Elk 

Grove Defendants”), Folsom Cordova Unified School District (“FCUSD”), Folsom Cordova 

SELPA (“FCSELPA”), Kim Triguero, Meghan Magee, Betty Jo Wessinger (collectively, 

“Folsom Cordova Defendants”), Pollock Pines Elementary School District (“PPESD”), Pat 

Atkins and Licia McDonald’s (collectively, “Pollock Pines Defendants”) Motion to Sever (ECF 

No. 137); California Department of Education’s (“CDE”) Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 139); 

Pollock Pines Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 141); Elk Grove Defendants’ Motion to 

Case 2:20-cv-00635-DJC-CSK Document 234 Filed 03/01/22 Page 1 of 5
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

Dismiss (ECF No. 142); Davis Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 143); Folsom Cordova 

Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 144); Handle with Care Behavior Management System, 

Inc.’s (“HWC”) Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 145); Guiding Hands School, Inc. (“GHS”), 

Staranne S. Meyers, Cindy Keller, Jennifer Christensen, Betty Morgan, Jill Watson, Linda Stern, 

Michael Smith, Le’mon Thomas, David Chambers, Andre Gatewood, Kim Dillon, Kris Laymon, 

Amanda Hinds, Robin Schummann, Zack Matlock, Kyle McCoy, Sandra Romano, Jennifer 

Jones, Merrilee Godbout, and Danielle Oehring’s (collectively, “GHS Defendants”) Motion to 

Dismiss (ECF No. 146); GHS Defendants’ Motion to Sever (ECF No. 149); Plaintiffs Stacia 

Langley, David Benson, Michael Turelli (personal representative of M.B.), Laura Kinser 

(individually and as guardian ad litem for D.Z.), Melanie Stark (individually and as guardian ad 

litem for M.S.), Cherilyn Caler (individually and as guardian ad litem for J.P.), Timothy Peterson 

(individually and as guardian ad litem for A.P.), Robert Darrough (individually and as guardian 

ad litem for E.D.), Kristen Coughlin (individually and as guardian ad litem for E.D.), Susan 

Muller (individually and as guardian ad litem for H.K.), and Christian Davis’s (individually and 

as guardian ad litem for S.D.) (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) Motion to Stay (ECF No. 153) and 

Motion to Amend (ECF No. 197); CDE’s Motion to Sever (ECF No. 223); and Yolo Defendants’ 

Motions for Sanctions (ECF Nos. 221, 229). 

For the reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion to Stay and 

STAYS this action until the conclusion of the parallel criminal proceedings. 

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 

The Court need not recount the background facts of the instant case as they are set forth 

fully in its order filed March 31, 2021. (See ECF No. 123 at 3–4.) Plaintiffs filed the operative 

Third Amended Complaint (“TAC”) on April 30, 2021, alleging various state and federal claims 

against Defendants. (ECF No. 126.) In short, this case involves injuries stemming from the use 

of restraints on students with disability-related behavioral issues, including the death of M.B. (Id.

at 3–5.) There have been a considerable number of filings in this case. Because the Court intends 

to grant Plaintiff’s motion to stay proceedings (ECF No. 153), the Court need not and does not 

address the remaining motions at this time. 

Case 2:20-cv-00635-DJC-CSK Document 234 Filed 03/01/22 Page 2 of 5
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

3

II. STANDARD OF LAW 

“A district court has inherent power to control the disposition of the causes on its docket 

in a manner which will promote economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for 

litigants.” CMAX, Inc. v. Hall, 300 F.2d 265, 268 (9th Cir. 1962). “Where it is proposed that a 

pending proceeding be stayed, the competing interests which will be affected by the granting or 

refusal to grant a stay must be weighed.” Id. “[T]hese 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. (citing Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254–55 (1936)). 

III. ANALYSIS 

Plaintiffs move to stay proceedings pending completion of the concurrent criminal 

proceedings against GHS Defendants who have been criminally charged with manslaughter in 

connection with M.B.’s death. (ECF No. 153 at 6.) Plaintiff argues a stay is warranted for the 

following reasons: (1) the issues underlying the civil and criminal actions are similar, and there is 

sealed evidence in the criminal case that could lead to new information for the civil case; (2) 

evidence from the criminal case is essential to establish connections between the current 

Defendants in the civil case and may lead to new parties needing to be named; (3) because of 

Fifth Amendment privilege, Plaintiffs cannot make direct inquiries of the criminal defendants 

who are also Defendants in the civil case; (4) a stay is appropriate as to all parties to avoid 

duplication of effort and waste of resources by filing additional motions to amend and requiring 

the Court to resolve pending motions; and (5) the public interest in the integrity of the criminal 

case takes precedence over the civil action. (Id. at 6–7.) 

Defendants filed separate oppositions, but their arguments largely overlap. (See ECF Nos. 

172, 184, 185, 187, 188.) In sum, Defendants argue Plaintiffs’ motion to stay is an unnecessary 

delay tactic. Those Defendants who are not named in the criminal action also argue there is no 

need to stay the case as to all Defendants. Defendants further argue Plaintiffs essentially request 

an indefinite stay, which burdens Defendants who seek a timely conclusion of litigation. 

Case 2:20-cv-00635-DJC-CSK Document 234 Filed 03/01/22 Page 3 of 5
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

4

The Court finds the CMAX factors weigh in favor of granting the stay. First, as to “the 

possible damage which may result from the granting of a stay,” Defendants argue a stay would 

increase the expense of litigation. See CMAX, 300 F.2d at 268. Defendants also argue they are 

entitled to rulings on their various pending motions. However, Defendants speak in generalities, 

and it is unclear how a stay would significantly increase the costs of litigation. Regarding 

Defendants’ pending motions, the Court intends to automatically reinstate the motions once the 

stay is lifted, which will reduce the expense to Defendants. It also bears mentioning that at the 

time Plaintiff filed the motion to stay, a preliminary hearing had been set in the criminal case for 

August 27, 2021. (ECF No. 153 at 12.) Although Plaintiff has not updated the Court as to the 

status of the criminal case, it cannot be said that Plaintiff is seeking an indefinite stay as the 

criminal case appears to be moving forward and will inevitably have a resolution. As such, the 

Court concludes the damage which may result from granting the stay is minimal. 

As to “the hardship or inequity which a party may suffer in being required to go forward,”

Plaintiffs argue they are unable to access evidence at issue in the criminal case. See CMAX, 300 

F.2d at 268. Plaintiffs contend this prevents them from fully responding to Defendants’ motions 

and prevents them from properly alleging their claims. Plaintiffs have already filed oppositions to 

Defendants’ pending motions, as well as a motion for leave to file a Fourth Amended Complaint. 

It is thus unclear to what extent Plaintiffs would suffer hardship should this case proceed, other 

than potentially needing to file yet another motion for leave to amend. Therefore, the Court 

concludes the hardship to Plaintiffs in going forward is also minimal. 

The third factor — which considers “the orderly course of justice” — is the most 

compelling in the instant case. See id. This is a complex case, involving many parties, legal 

issues, and factual allegations, all revolving around the actions of GHS Defendants who are 

currently facing criminal charges. Plaintiffs anticipate the criminal proceeding will lead to more 

information bearing on the civil case, which will necessitate an additional motion for leave to 

amend. This Court has the “inherent power to control the disposition of the causes on its docket.” 

Id. Considering the number of pending motions before the Court, which will be mooted if the 

Court grants a future motion to amend based information gathered from the criminal proceeding, 

Case 2:20-cv-00635-DJC-CSK Document 234 Filed 03/01/22 Page 4 of 5
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

5

the Court concludes a stay would best “promote economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, 

and for litigants.” Id. 

In sum, the Court finds the CMAX factors weigh in favoring of granting a stay in this 

action pending conclusion of the parallel criminal proceedings. 

IV. CONCLUSION 

For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion to Stay. (ECF No. 153.) 

The parties are ORDERED to file a joint status report within thirty (30) days of the conclusion of 

the parallel criminal proceedings, indicating whether the stay should be lifted and whether 

Plaintiffs intend to file a new motion to amend. All other pending motions will be reinstated 

when the stay is lifted. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: February 28, 2022

Troy L. Nunley

United States District Judge

Case 2:20-cv-00635-DJC-CSK Document 234 Filed 03/01/22 Page 5 of 5