Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00284/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00284-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Luis C. Domingo
Plaintiff
Management & Training Corporation
Defendant
United States of America
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

In Edison v. United States of America, et al., Case No. 1:12-cv-02026-AWI-JLT and

Nuwintore v. United States of America, et al., Case No. 1:13-cv- 00967-AWI-JLT, both plaintiffs

have appealed the Court’s determination that the United States of America is not liable. The 

remaining portion of these cases, against Management & Training Corporation, has been stayed 

pending the outcome of the appeal. As Mr. Domingo does, the Edison and Nuwintore plaintiffs 

claim they contracted Valley Fever while housed at Taft Correctional Institution which is a privately 

run, though government owned, federal prison. 

Now before the Court is the stipulation of the parties seeking to stay this action while the 

appeals in Edison and Nuwintore are decided. (Doc. 15)

I. The stipulation fails to demonstrate that a stay is necessary

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 

LUIS C. DOMINGO,

 Plaintiff,

v.

MANAGEMENT & TRAINING 

CORPORATION,

Defendants.

Case No.: 1:15-cv-00284 AWI JLT

ORDER DENYING STIPULATION TO STAY 

THE ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE

(Doc. 15)

Case 1:15-cv-00284-AWI-JLT Document 18 Filed 06/18/15 Page 1 of 2
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

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 a stay is warranted, 

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). 

Here, the Court finds no inequity if the matter is not stayed. Mr. Domingo’s complaint does 

not name the United States of America. (Doc. 1) This is likely due to the fact that Plaintiff delayed 

until February 2015 to file his FTCA claim—the very day this action was filed—and the claim has 

not yet been decided. (Doc. 17 at 2) In any event, at this time, there is no reason to believe that the 

outcome of the Edison and/or Nuwintore appeals will have or can have any impact on the outcome 

of this case. Consequently, the Court cannot find that the case would be simplified or that judicial 

resources would be preserved if the matter was stayed. Therefore, the Court will DENY the 

stipulation (Doc. 15) WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 18, 2015 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-00284-AWI-JLT Document 18 Filed 06/18/15 Page 2 of 2