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 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Fernando Gastelum, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Tempe Hospitality Ventures LLC, 

Defendant. 

No. CV-18-00452-PHX-JJT

ORDER 

 At issue is Plaintiff’s Motion for Attorney Fees (Doc. 19). This case is one of at 

least six cases before this Court brought by Plaintiff against various hotels for alleged 

violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”). The Court will deny the 

pending Motion for Attorney Fees without prejudice and temporarily stay this case for 

the same reasons as District Judge Diane Humetewa laid out in her similarly-situated 

cases, as follows: 

 Plaintiff has filed over 100 mirror-image cases in this District against hotels in the 

greater Phoenix area. In one such case, Judge G. Murray Snow granted Defendant’s 

motion to dismiss the case, holding that Gastelum failed to show an injury-in-fact or a 

likelihood of future injury, and therefore that he lacked Article III standing to bring the 

suit. See Gastelum v. Canyon Hospitality LLC, No. 17-cv-02792-PHX-GMS (D. Ariz. 

filed August 18, 2017). As part of that decision, Judge Snow dismissed eight other 

actions in which Gastelum was the Plaintiff on the basis of lack of Article III standing. 

Case 2:18-cv-00452-JJT Document 22 Filed 06/26/18 Page 1 of 4
- 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 

Gastelum has appealed that decision to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Gastelum v. 

Canyon Hospitality LLC, No. 18-16032 (9th Cir. filed June 5, 2018). 

 For reasons stated herein, the Court, in its discretion, will stay all of these 

proceedings and will deny all of the pending motions without prejudice pending the 

outcome of the appeal that arose from the Gastelum decision by Judge G. Murray Snow. 

I. Legal Authority 

 District courts have the inherent power to manage their dockets and stay 

proceedings. Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254–55 (1936); Clinton v. Jones, 520 

U.S. 681, 706–707 (1997); Lockyer v. Mirant Corp., 398 F.3d 1098, 1109 (9th Cir. 2005). 

“The 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, 299 U.S. at 254. The inherent power to stay 

includes ordering a stay “pending resolution of independent proceedings which bear upon 

the case.” Leyva v. Certified Grocers of Cal., Ltd., 593 F.2d 857, 863 (9th Cir. 1979). 

 Where a stay is considered pending the resolution of another action, the court need 

not find that two cases possess identical issues; a finding that the issues are substantially 

similar is sufficient to support a stay. See Landis, 299 U.S. at 254. The Ninth Circuit has 

held that in determining whether a stay of a pending proceeding is appropriate based 

upon the existence of other similar proceedings, a district court must weigh “the 

competing interests which will be affected by the granting or refusal to grant a stay....” 

Lockyer v. Mirant Corp., 398 F.3d at 1110. The competing interests to be considered are: 

the possible damage that may result from the granting of a stay; the hardship that the 

party seeking the stay may suffer by being required to go forward; and 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.” Id. 

II. Analysis 

As an initial matter, all of the cases filed by Mr. Gastelum before this Court 

present the same boilerplate language, alleging nearly identical types of ADA violations, 

Case 2:18-cv-00452-JJT Document 22 Filed 06/26/18 Page 2 of 4
- 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 

and concern the same Plaintiff. In addition to these actions being similar to each other, 

the actions before this Court are substantially similar in nature to those dismissed for lack 

of Article III standing by Judge Snow, and currently on appeal to the Ninth Circuit. See 

Gastelum v. Canyon Hospitality LLC, No. 17-cv-02792-PHX-GMS (D. Ariz. filed 

August 18, 2017). Therefore, the Court finds that the issues presented by all of the cases 

herein are substantially similar, and that a decision by the Ninth Circuit in the Canyon 

Hospitality case will directly impact whether the Plaintiff has standing in this Court. See 

Landis, 299 U.S. at 254. Having found that the matters in question are substantially 

similar, the Court will now turn to the factors laid out in the Lockyer decision. 

 The Court can see no damage to either party that will result from staying these 

proceedings. There is no urgency in deciding the present case, as Plaintiff is currently 

litigating an appeal in at least nine cases with substantially similar factual allegations. 

Moreover, the most compelling factor to consider in determining whether to stay these 

proceedings is 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). The Court currently 

has a number of pending motions seeking a variety of forms of relief in these cases. The 

Court would expend significant judicial resources, and delay resolutions of other matters 

on the Court’s docket, in deciding these pending motions. The Court finds it to be in the 

interest of efficiency and judicial economy to stay all of these matters pending the Ninth 

Circuit’s decision in the Canyon Hospitality matter. The prospect—however uncertain—

of the parties and Court engaging in costly litigation and expending of significant judicial 

resources, only to have the Ninth Circuit affirm the finding of lack of Article III standing, 

warrants a stay of all pending Gastelum proceedings. 

 Accordingly, 

 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this proceeding is stayed pending the appeal in 

Gastelum v. Canyon Hospitality LLC, No. 17-cv-02792-PHX-GMS (D. Ariz. filed 

August 18, 2017). 

Case 2:18-cv-00452-JJT Document 22 Filed 06/26/18 Page 3 of 4
- 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 

 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Attorney Fees (Doc. 19) 

is denied without prejudice. 

 Dated this 26th day of June, 2018. 

Honorable John J. Tuchi

United States District Judge 

Case 2:18-cv-00452-JJT Document 22 Filed 06/26/18 Page 4 of 4