Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_22-cv-01624/USCOURTS-caed-1_22-cv-01624-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Psalms Martinez
Plaintiff
Saputo Dairy Foods USA, LLC
Defendant

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PSALMS MARTINEZ, an individual on 

behalf of himself and on behalf of all 

persons similarly situated.

Plaintiffs,

v.

SAPUTO DAIRY FOODS USA, LLC,

A limited liability corporation,

Defendant.

Case No. 1:22-cv-01624-ADA-HBK

ORDER GRANTING STAY OF ACTION

AND VACATING ALL HEARING DATES 

AND RELATED DEADLINES

(Doc. No. 19)

On May 30, 2023, Defendant Saputo Dairy Foods USA, LLC and Plaintiff Psalms

Martinez (collectively, the “Parties”) filed a joint stipulated motion seeking a stay of this action.1 

(Doc. No. 19). The Parties request the Court to stay this action, including all discovery, and to 

vacate all hearing dates and related deadlines in order that the Parties may engage in private 

mediation. (Id.). 

A court is vested with broad discretion to stay a case. Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 705 

(1997) (citing Landis v. North American Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936)). The “party requesting a 

stay bears the burden of showing that the circumstances justify an exercise of that discretion.” 

1 This action is related to Romero v. Saputo Dairy Foods USA, LLC, No. 23-cv-00427-ADA-HBK and 

Vargas v. Saputo Dairy Foods USA, LLC, No. 22-cv-01645-ADA-HBK. An order granting a stay will be 

entered in each of the related cases. 

Case 1:22-cv-01624-DJC-JDP Document 20 Filed 05/31/23 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

Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 433-34 (2009). Generally, “stays should not be indefinite in 

nature.” Dependable Highway Exp., Inc. v. Navigators Ins. Co., 498 F.3d 1059, 1066-67 (9th Cir. 

2007). If a stay is especially long or indefinite, a greater showing is required to justify it and the 

court must “balance the length of any stay against the strength of the justification given for it.” 

Yong v. I.N.S., 208 F.3d 1116, 1119 (9th Cir. 2000). The Parties have met their burden to justify 

a stay of this action. 

Accordingly, it is ORDERED: 

1. The joint motion to stay (Doc. No. 19) is GRANTED and this case, including all 

discovery, is STAYED until further order of Court. 

2. The Court vacates all hearing dates and deadlines. 

3. The Parties shall file a joint status report every ninety (90) days to advise the Court of 

the status of mediation and whether a further stay of this action is warranted. 

Dated: May 31, 2023 

HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:22-cv-01624-DJC-JDP Document 20 Filed 05/31/23 Page 2 of 2