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. 

VRE Holding II LLC, 

Defendant. 

No. CV-18-00747-PHX-DJH 

ORDER 

 This matter is before the Court upon its own review. This case is one of twenty 

cases

1

 before the Court brought by Plaintiff against various hotels for alleged ADA 

violations.2

 Twenty-six motions are currently pending within these twenty cases. 

 1

 Fourteen of these cases are currently open, while six are closed and have pending motions for attorney fees. 

2

 Cases assigned to this Court include the following: Gastelum v. Vedanta Resources 

LLC, No. 17-cv-02623-PHX-DJH (D. Ariz. filed August 6, 2017); Gastelum v. Metro 

Hospitality LLC, No. 17-cv-02704-PHX-DJH (D. Ariz. filed August 10, 2017); Gastelum 

v. Summit Hotel OP Limited Partnership, No. 17-cv-02888-PHX-DJH (D. Ariz. filed 

August 27, 2017); Gastelum v. H & A Group LLC, No. 17-cv-03235-PHX-DJH (D. Ariz. 

filed September 19, 2017); Gastelum v. MMP Deer Valley Incorporated, No. 17-cv03534-PHX-DJH (D. Ariz. filed October 5, 2017); Gastelum v. PCH North Phoenix LLC, 

No. 17-cv-03627-PHX-DJH (D. Ariz. filed October 10, 2017); Gastelum v. SH Holdings 

LLC, No. 17-cv-04081-PHX-DJH (D. Ariz. filed November 4, 2017); Gastelum v. 

Chandler & Kyrene Hotel Group LLC, No. 17-cv-04089-PHX-DJH (D. Ariz. filed 

November 6, 2017); Gastelum v. JC Hotel Management LLC, No. 17-cv-04542-PHXDJH (D. Ariz. filed November 11, 2017); Gastelum v. Midtown Hotel Group LLC, No. 

17-cv-04542-PHX-DJH (D. Ariz. filed December 7, 2017); Gastelum v. Day & Sam 

Incorporated, No. 17-cv-04728-PHX-DJH (D. Ariz. filed December 21, 2017); Gastelum 

Case 2:18-cv-00747-DJH Document 19 Filed 06/14/18 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 

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. 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 

 

v. Gurkripa Hotel Group LLC, No. 18-cv-0943-PHX-DJH (D. Ariz. filed March 27, 

2018); Gastelum v. MCRT Tempe LLC, No. 18-cv-01101-PHX-DJH (D. Ariz. filed April 

11, 2018); Gastelum v. Bel Aire Hospitality LLC, No. 17-cv-03184-PHX-DJH (D. Ariz. 

filed September 14, 2017); Gastelum v. Champion Hotel Investment of Phoenix LLC, No. 

17-cv-03834-PHX-DJH (D. Ariz. filed October 19, 2017); Gastelum v. 3600 North 

Second Avenue Holdings LLC, No. 17-cv-04379-PHX-DJH (D. Ariz. filed November 29, 

2017); Gastelum v. VRE Holding II LLC, No. 18-cv-0747-PHX-DJH (D. Ariz. filed 

March 7, 2018); Gastelum v. Drury Development Corporation, No. 18-cv-01035-PHXDJH (D. Ariz. filed April 3, 2018); Gastelum v. 3XM LLC et al, No. 18-cv-01725-PHXDJH (D. Ariz. filed June 5, 2018); Gastelum v. Gosai and Grandsons LLC, No. 18-cv01816-PHX-DJH (D. Ariz. filed June 11, 2018). 

Case 2:18-cv-00747-DJH Document 19 Filed 06/14/18 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 

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, 

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 

Case 2:18-cv-00747-DJH Document 19 Filed 06/14/18 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 

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 twenty-six 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). 

 Dated this 14th day of June, 2018. 

Honorable Diane J. Humetewa 

United States District Judge 

 

Case 2:18-cv-00747-DJH Document 19 Filed 06/14/18 Page 4 of 4