Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_24-cv-03400/USCOURTS-caed-2_24-cv-03400-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Amazon Retail LLC
Defendant
Rita Talbert
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RITA TALBERT,

Plaintiff,

v.

AMAZON RETAIL LLC,

Defendant.

No. 2:24-cv-03400-DAD-JDP

ORDER GRANTING THE PARTIES’ 

REQUEST TO STAY THIS ACTION

(Doc. No. 8)

On January 2, 2025, the parties filed a joint stipulation to stay this action pending the 

resolution of an earlier-filed wage-and-hour class action in the United States District Court for the 

Central District of California, Chicas v. Amazon Retail LLC, Case No. 2:24-cv-10306-FMO-SSC 

(C.D. Cal.) (“the Chicas action”). (Doc. No. 8.) In their request, the parties state that “the 

plaintiffs in Chicas assert substantially similar claims to those asserted by Talbert in this action 

and seek to represent a putative class composed of ‘all current and former non-exempt employees 

of [Amazon Retail] in the State of California at any time within the period beginning 

[September 25, 2020] and ending at the time this action settles or the class is certified,’ Chicas 

Compl. ¶ 6, which includes the overwhelming majority of Talbert’s putative class and Talbert 

herself . . . .” (Doc. No. 8 at 2–3) (alterations in original). The parties argue that “the interests of 

efficiency and judicial economy would be served by staying this action” in light of “the overlap 

between the claims at issue in Chicas and this case . . . .” (Id. at 3.)

Case 2:24-cv-03400-DAD-JDP Document 9 Filed 01/13/25 Page 1 of 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

2

“[T]he 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 for itself, for 

counsel, and for litigants.” Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936); accord Stone v. INS, 

514 U.S. 386, 411 (1995) (Breyer, J., dissenting) (“[W]e have long recognized that courts have 

inherent power to stay proceedings and ‘to control the disposition of the causes on its docket with 

economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants.’”) (quoting Landis, 299 U.S. 

at 254); Ernest Bock, LLC v. Steelman, 76 F.4th 827, 842 (9th Cir. 2023). Deciding whether to 

grant a stay pending the outcome of other proceedings “calls for the exercise of judgment, which 

must weigh competing interests and maintain an even balance.” Landis, 299 U.S. at 254–55.

In considering whether to grant a stay, this court must weigh several factors, including 

“[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.” CMAX, Inc. v. Hall, 300 F.2d 265, 268 (9th Cir. 

1962) (citing Landis, 299 U.S. at 254–55); see also Ernest Bock, LLC, 76 F.4th at 842. A stay 

may be granted regardless of whether the separate proceedings are “judicial, administrative, or 

arbitral in character, and does not require that the issues in such proceedings are necessarily 

controlling of the action before the court.” Leyva v. Certified Grocers of Cal., Ltd., 593 F.2d 857, 

864 (9th Cir. 1979).

The court concludes that the possible damage which may result from the granting of a stay 

here is minimal in light of the parties’ stipulation. Furthermore, the court concludes that “the 

orderly course of justice,” CMAX, 300 F.2d at 268, and considerations of “economy of time and 

effort for [the court], for counsel, and for litigants,” Landis, 299 U.S. at 254, weigh strongly in 

favor of staying this action given the overlapping nature of the claims at issue in the Chicas action 

and this case.

Accordingly, the parties’ joint request to stay this action (Doc. No. 8) is granted. The 

parties shall file a joint status report within 90 days from the date of entry of this order, and every 

90 days thereafter, informing this court as to the status of the related proceedings in the Chicas

Case 2:24-cv-03400-DAD-JDP Document 9 Filed 01/13/25 Page 2 of 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

3

action. In addition, the parties shall file a notice informing this court that a final judgment has 

been entered in the Chicas action within fourteen (14) days of entry of that judgment by the 

district court. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 10, 2025 

DALE A. DROZD

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:24-cv-03400-DAD-JDP Document 9 Filed 01/13/25 Page 3 of 3