Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01835/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01835-28/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:451 Employment Discrimination

---

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

IRMA B. SANCHEZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:12-cv-01835-SAB

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO 

SHORTEN TIME AND EXTENDING STAY 

OF ENFORCEMENT OF JUDGMENT

(ECF No. 189)

On May 27, 2015, a jury trial in this action commenced. The jury returned a verdict in 

favor of Plaintiff and against Defendants on all claims on June 10, 2015, and a punitive damage 

award on June 11, 2015 against Defendant Smyth. On June 19, 2015, Defendants filed a motion 

to stay enforcement of the judgment pending disposition of post-trial motions in this action and 

an application for an order shortening time. (ECF Nos. 186-188, 189). 

Defendants seek to have the motion to stay heard prior to the expiration of the mandatory 

thirty day stay on enforcing the original judgment. (ECF No. 189.) The Court shall deny 

Defendants’ application for an order shortening time as the Court’s schedule does not provide for 

an opportunity to hear the motion prior to the currently scheduled date. “The District Court has 

broad discretion to stay proceedings as an incident to its power to control its own docket.” Clinton v. 

Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 706 (1997). “The 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 

Case 1:12-cv-01835-SAB Document 190 Filed 06/24/15 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

for itself, for counsel, and for litigants.” Landis v. North American Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936).

Due to the pending motion to stay enforcement of the judgement, the Court finds good cause to 

extend the automatic stay for enforcement of the original judgment until disposition of 

Defendants’ motion to stay. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Defendants’ application for an order shortening time to hear the motion to stay is 

DENIED;

2. Defendants’ motion to stay shall be heard on July 22, 2015, at 10:00 a.m. in 

Courtroom 9; and

3. The automatic stay on enforcing the original judgment is extended until an order 

issues resolving Defendants’ motion to stay.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 23, 2015 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:12-cv-01835-SAB Document 190 Filed 06/24/15 Page 2 of 2