Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_05-cv-02076/USCOURTS-casd-3_05-cv-02076-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: Americans with Disabilities 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 - 05CV2076 BEN (BLM)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LYNN J. HUBBARD and BARBARA J.

HUBBARD,

Plaintiffs,

CASE NO. 05CV2076 BEN (BLM)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’

EX PARTE APPLICATION TO

STAY RULING ON DEFENDANTS’

MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES

[Doc. No. 58]

vs.

KAYO OIL COMPANY;

CONOCOPHILLIPS COMPANY dba

CIRCLE K,

Defendants.

Plaintiffs Lynn J. Hubbard and Barbara J. Hubbard (“Plaintiffs”) move this Court ex parte

for a stay of its ruling on Defendants Kayo Oil Company and ConocoPhillips Company, dba Circle

K (collectively “Defendants” or “Kayo Oil”) motion for attorneys’ fees. Plaintiffs request a stay

on the basis that the Ninth Circuit is scheduled to hear an appeal in Molski v. Levon Investments, et

al., on April 17, 2007. Plaintiffs contend that the Molski case “addresses the exact same issues,

facts and arguments that are raised in Defendants’ Motion for Attorney’s Fees and Plaintiffs’

Opposition thereto.” 

The Court finds that while the issues presented in Molski may be similar to the instant case,

they do not appear to be identical, nor do the facts or procedural posture. Additionally, this case

does not present issues of first impression such that the Court would be well advised to wait for

guidance from the Ninth Circuit. District courts have inherent power to control their dockets. 

Case 3:05-cv-02076-BEN-BLM Document 92 Filed 04/05/07 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 - 05CV2076 BEN (BLM)

Southern California Edison Co. v. Lynch, 307 F.3d 794 (9th Cir. 2002). The Court hereby

exercises that power, and finds that there is no reason to delay resolution of the Defendants’

motion. Plaintiffs’ ex parte application is denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED

DATED: April 5, 2007

Hon. Roger T. Benitez

United States District Judge

.

Case 3:05-cv-02076-BEN-BLM Document 92 Filed 04/05/07 Page 2 of 2