Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01100/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01100-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Chad Langworthy
Plaintiff
Teal Langworthy
Plaintiff
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
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

1

SCOTT J. HYMAN (State Bar No. 148709)

sjh@severson.com

AN LE (State Bar No. 260817)

al@severson.com

SEVERSON & WERSON

A Professional Corporation

The Atrium

19100 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 700

Irvine, California 92612

Telephone: (949) 442-7110

Facsimile: (949) 442-7118

Attorneys for Defendant

WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A. (erroneously sued 

as Wells Fargo Bank)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Teal Langworthy and Chad Langworthy,

Plaintiffs,

vs.

Wells Fargo Bank, and Does 1 to 25, 

inclusive,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:15-cv-01100 -JLT

[PROPOSED] ORDER TO STAY ACTION 

PENDING ARBITRATION

(Doc. 10)

PROPOSED ORDER

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 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 

Case 1:15-cv-01100-JLT Document 11 Filed 11/12/15 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

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). 

The Court finds the parties’ resources as well as the Court’s resources would be preserved 

if the matter was stay pending the arbitration. Moreover, the Court is unaware of any hardship or 

inequity that would result thereby. Consequently, the Court will GRANT the stipulation. (Doc. 

10) 

ORDER

1. The stipulation of the parties to stay this matter (Doc. 10) is GRANTED;

2. The matter is REMANDED to arbitration and the matter is STAYED;

3. No later than June 3, 2016, and every 60 days thereafter, counsel SHALL file a 

joint status report setting forth the status of the arbitration and whether the Court should lift the 

stay.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 12, 2015 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-01100-JLT Document 11 Filed 11/12/15 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

07685.1496/5603987.1

[PROPOSED] ORDER TO STAY ACTION PENDING ARBITRATION

Case 1:15-cv-01100-JLT Document 11 Filed 11/12/15 Page 3 of 3