Hiett et al v. MHN Government Services, Inc. et al
Filing
33
ORDER denying 28 Motion to Lift Stay, signed by Judge Benjamin H Settle.(CMG)
<![CDATA[
1
2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT TACOMA
3
4
5
CINDY HIETT, et al.,
6
Plaintiffs,
7
CASE NO. C12-5428 BHS
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’
MOTION TO LIFT STAY
v.
8
MHN GOVERNMENT SERVICES,
9 INC., et al.,
Defendants.
10
11
12
This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiffs’ motion for a limited lift of the
13 stay (Dkt. 28). The Court has considered the pleadings filed in support of and in
14 opposition to the motion and the remainder of the file and hereby denies the motion for
15 the reasons stated herein.
I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY
16
17
On October 9, 2012, the Court stayed this case pending the appeal of a state court
18 decision on an issue that is directly relevant to this proceeding. Dkt. 26. On October 11,
19 2012, Plaintiffs filed a motion for a limited lift of the stay. Dkt. 28. On October 22,
20 2012, Defendants responded. Dkt. 30. On October 25, 2012, Plaintiffs replied. Dkt. 32.
21
22
ORDER - 1
1
2
II. DISCUSSION
“The power to grant a stay in pending litigation is incidental to the power inherent
3 in every court to control the disposition of the cases on its docket.” Landis v. North Am.
4 Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254–55 (1936). Accordingly, federal district courts have broad
5 discretion to stay proceedings in the interests of justice. Little v. City of Seattle, 863 F.2d
6 681, 685 (9th Cir. 1988).
7
In this case, Plaintiffs request that the Court lift the stay for the limited purpose of
8 conditional certification of Plaintiffs’ alleged class. Dkt. 28. Plaintiffs have failed to
9 persuade the Court that any lifting of the stay would be in the interests of justice. The
10 issue on appeal is whether arbitration should be enforced, which provides a less costly,
11 less burdensome, and more efficient means of resolving disputes between private parties.
12 AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, 131 S. Ct. 1740, 1749 (2011). Lifting the stay to
13 continue with this proceeding would undermine this principle. Therefore, the Court
14 denies Plaintiffs’ motion.
15
16
III. ORDER
Therefore, it is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ motion to lift the stay (Dkt. 28)
17 is DENIED.
18
Dated this 6th day of November, 2012.
A
19
20
BENJAMIN H. SETTLE
United States District Judge
21
22
ORDER - 2
]]>
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?
