Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-01530/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-01530-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Theresa Brooke
Plaintiff
Charter Inn Suites
Defendant
Terra Investments I, LLC
Defendant

Document Text:

1

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

THERESA BROOKE,

 Plaintiff,

v.

H&K PARTNERSHIP, a California 

partnership dba Best Economy Inn & Suites,

Defendant.

____________________________________

THERESA BROOKE,

 Plaintiff,

v.

C & S CHONG INVESTMENT 

CORPORATION, a California corporation 

dba La Quinta Inn Bakersfield North,

Defendant.

____________________________________

THERESA BROOKE,

 Plaintiff,

v.

JDS HOSPITALITY GROUP, LLC, a 

California limited liability company dba 

Days Inn Bakersfield,

Defendant.

Case No.: 1:16-cv-1406-AWI-JLT

ORDER STAYING ALL OF THE RELATED 

ACTIONS

Case No.: 1:16-cv-1407-LJO-JLT

Case No.: 1:16-cv-1408-DAD-JLT

Case 1:16-cv-01530-DAD-JLT Document 7 Filed 10/28/16 Page 1 of 9
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

THERESA BROOKE,

 Plaintiff,

v.

JHP HOSPITALITY GROUP, INC., a 

California corporation dba Ramada Limited 

Bakersfield North,

Defendant.

____________________________________

THERESA BROOKE,

 Plaintiff,

v.

D.P.R.L. INVESTMENTS, LLC, a 

California limited liability company dba 

Hotel Rosedale,

Defendant.

____________________________________

THERESA BROOKE,

 Plaintiff,

v.

KOO JIN HYUN & CHU MYUNG HEE, 

trustees of the KOO JIN HYUN & CHU 

MYUNG HEE TRUST dba Hampton Inn & 

Suites Bakersfield North-Airport,

Defendants.

____________________________________

THERESA BROOKE,

 Plaintiff,

v.

PRIME HOSPITALITY SERVICES, LLC, a 

California limited liability company dba 

Hampton Inn & Suites Bakersfield/Hwy 58,

Defendant.

Case No.: 1:16-cv-1409-AWI-JLT

Case No.: 1:16-cv-1410-LJO-JLT

Case No.: 1:16-cv-1411-DAD-JLT

Case No.: 1:16-cv-1414- LJO-JLT

Case 1:16-cv-01530-DAD-JLT Document 7 Filed 10/28/16 Page 2 of 9
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

THERESA BROOKE,

 Plaintiff,

v.

RP GOLDEN STATE MGT, LLC, a 

California limited liability company dba 

Garden Suites Inn,

Defendant.

____________________________________

THERESA BROOKE,

 Plaintiff,

v.

KPK, INC., a California corporation dba 

Travelodge Turlock,

Defendant.

____________________________________

THERESA BROOKE,

 Plaintiff,

v.

LILJENQUIST MODESTO COMPANY, 

LLC, a California limited liability company 

dba Modesto Hotel,

Defendant.

____________________________________

THERESA BROOKE,

 Plaintiff,

v.

METRO HOSPITALITY SERVICES, INC., 

a California corporation dba Hampton Inn 

Fresno NW,

Defendant.

Case No.: 1:16-cv-1415-LJO-JLT

Case No.: 1:16-cv-1449-LJO -JLT

Case No.: 1:16-cv-1454-DAD-JLT

Case No.: 1:16-cv-1455- DAD-JLT

Case 1:16-cv-01530-DAD-JLT Document 7 Filed 10/28/16 Page 3 of 9
4

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

THERESA BROOKE,

 Plaintiff,

v.

JAYESHKUMAR PATEL, an individual; 

PRAFULBHAI PATEL, an individual, both 

individuals dba Budget Inn Modesto,

Defendants.

____________________________________

THERESA BROOKE,

 Plaintiff,

v.

KHATRI BROTHERS, L.P., a California 

limited partnership dba Clarion Modesto,

Defendant.

____________________________________

THERESA BROOKE,

 Plaintiff,

v.

A&A TARZANA PLAZA, LP, a California 

limited partnership dba Hilton Garden Inn 

Clovis,

Defendant.

____________________________________

THERESA BROOKE,

 Plaintiff,

v.

THANDI ENTERPRISES, LLC, a California 

limited liability company dba Holiday Inn 

Express Fresno,

Defendant.

____________________________________

Case No.: 1:16-cv-1456-LJO-JLT

Case No.: 1:16-cv-1465-AWI-JLT

Case No.: 1:16-cv-1499-AWI- JLT

Case No.: 1:16-cv-1503-DAD- JLT

Case 1:16-cv-01530-DAD-JLT Document 7 Filed 10/28/16 Page 4 of 9
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

THERESA BROOKE,

 Plaintiff,

v.

FRESNO AIRPORT HOTELS, LLC, a 

California limited liability company dba 

Ramada Fresno Airport,

Defendant.

____________________________________

THERESA BROOKE,

 Plaintiff,

v.

KAINTH BROTHERS, INC., a California 

corporation dba Country Inn Suites Fresno 

North,

Defendant.

____________________________________

THERESA BROOKE,

 Plaintiff,

v.

SHIV HOTELS, LLC, a California limited 

liability company dba Hampton Inn Fresno,

Defendant.

____________________________________

THERESA BROOKE,

 Plaintiff,

v.

SHIVKRUPA INVESTMENTS, INC., a 

California corporation dba La Quinta Inn 

Suites Fresno,

Defendant.

Case No.: 1:16-cv-1506-DAD- JLT

Case No.: 1:16-cv-1508-LJO- JLT

Case No.: 1:16-cv-1509-LJO- JLT

Case No.: 1:16-cv-1510-LJO- JLT

Case 1:16-cv-01530-DAD-JLT Document 7 Filed 10/28/16 Page 5 of 9
6

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

THERESA BROOKE,

 Plaintiff,

v.

SHRIGI, INC., a California corporation dba 

Welcome Inn Fresno,

Defendant.

____________________________________

THERESA BROOKE,

 Plaintiff,

v.

THE DAE SUNG & HEE JAE CHA TRUST 

dba Quality Inn Tulare,

Defendant.

____________________________________

THERESA BROOKE,

 Plaintiff,

v.

HANFORD INVESTORS, INC., a 

California corporation dba Comfort Inn 

Hanford,

Defendant.

____________________________________

THERESA BROOKE,

 Plaintiff,

v.

INTERLINK PROPERTIES L.P., a 

California limited partnership dba Hampton 

Inn Visalia,

Defendant.

Case No.: 1:16-cv-1511-LJO- JLT

Case No.: 1:16-cv-1520-LJO- JLT

Case No.: 1:16-cv-1521-AWI- JLT

Case No.: 1:16-cv-1522-LJO- JLT

Case 1:16-cv-01530-DAD-JLT Document 7 Filed 10/28/16 Page 6 of 9
7

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

THERESA BROOKE,

 Plaintiff,

v.

NMA HOSPITALITY LLC, a California 

limited liability company dba La Quinta 

Tulare,

Defendant.

____________________________________

THERESA BROOKE,

 Plaintiff,

v.

TERRA INVESTMENTS I, LLC, a 

California limited liability company dba 

Charter Inn Suites,

Defendant.

____________________________________

THERESA BROOKE,

 Plaintiff,

v.

PICADILLY INN UNIVERSITY, dba 

University Square Hotel,

Defendant.

____________________________________

THERESA BROOKE,

 Plaintiff,

v.

DAYS INN OF FRESNO PARTNERSHIP, 

dba Days Inn Fresno Central,

Defendant.

Case No.: 1:16-cv-1529-DAD- JLT

Case No.: 1:16-cv-1530-DAD- JLT

Case No.: 1:16-cv-1594-AWI- JLT

Case No.: 1:16-cv-1595-DAD- JLT

Case 1:16-cv-01530-DAD-JLT Document 7 Filed 10/28/16 Page 7 of 9
8

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

A district court has the inherent power to stay its proceedings. This power to stay 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. North American Co., 299 U.S. 

248, 254 (1936); see also Gold v. Johns–Manville Sales Corp., 723 F.2d 1068, 1077 (3d Cir.1983) 

(holding that the power to stay proceedings comes from the power of every court to manage the cases 

on its docket and to ensure a fair and efficient adjudication of the matter at hand). This is best 

accomplished by the “exercise of judgment, which must weigh competing interests and maintain an 

even balance.” Landis, 299 U.S. at 254–55. In determining whether to issue a stay, courts consider the 

potential prejudice to the non-moving party; the hardship or inequity to the moving party if the action is 

not stayed; and the judicial resources that would be saved by simplifying the case or avoiding 

duplicative litigation if the case before the court is stayed. CMAX, Inc. v. Hall, 300 F.2d 265, 268 (9th 

Cir.1962). 

Recently, the Court ordered the plaintiff to show cause why the actions should not be dismissed 

for lack of standing and lack of subject matter jurisdiction. To allow time for this issue to be resolved 

and to avoid the occurrence of events inconsistent with the Court’s attempts to preserve judicial 

resources—including, for example, the filing of motions to dismiss—until the standing issue is 

resolved, the Court concludes that a stay is necessary. Thus, explicitly, the Court finds the parties’ and 

the Court’s resources would be preserved if the matter was stayed pending the resolution of the 

standing issue. Finally, the Court finds that there would be no hardship as a result of the brief stay that 

it anticipates. Accordingly, the Court ORDERS:

THERESA BROOKE,

 Plaintiff,

v.

PICADILLY INN EXPRESS,

Defendant.

Case No.: 1:16-cv-1596-DAD- JLT

Case 1:16-cv-01530-DAD-JLT Document 7 Filed 10/28/16 Page 8 of 9
9

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. Except for the plaintiff’s obligation to comply with the orders to show cause, the 

actions are STAYED. All other deadlines—including the obligation of the defendants to file 

responsive pleadings—are not in effect at this time.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 28, 2016 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:16-cv-01530-DAD-JLT Document 7 Filed 10/28/16 Page 9 of 9