Adams et al v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation et al

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
Northern District of California
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SHELTON ADAMS, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
CRAIG ALAN KOENIG, et al.,
Defendants.
LAWRENCE BROWN, et al.
Plaintiffs,
v.
CDCR, et al.
Defendants.
WILLIAM MILTON, et al.
Plaintiffs,
v.
CDCR, et al.
Defendants.
WILLIE UNDERWOOD,
Plaintiffs,
v.
CDCR, et al.
Defendants.
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO STAY
Case No. 21-cv-08545-JST
ECF No. 196
Case No. 25-cv-04741-JST
ECF No. 64
Case No. 23-cv-00582-JST
ECF No. 76
Case No. 24-cv-4399-JST
ECF No. 52
Now before the Court is Plaintiffs’ motion to stay the proceedings in these four related
Case 4:21-cv-08545-JST Document 204 Filed 04/03/26 Page 1 of 3

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
United States District Court
Northern District of California
cases due to Plaintiffs’ counsel Benjamin Pavone’s ongoing State Bar disciplinary proceedings.
The Ninth Circuit has articulated different tests for determination of a stay motion,
depending on the different circumstances in which the motion is presented. The Court agrees with
Plaintiffs that the test articulated in CMAX, Inc. v. Hall, 300 F.2d 265 (9th Cir.1962) is appropriate
here:
Where it is proposed that a pending proceeding be stayed, the
competing interests which will be affected by the granting or refusal
to grant a stay must be weighed. Among those competing interests
are [1] the possible damage which may result from the granting of a
stay, [2] the hardship or inequity which a party may suffer in being
required to go forward, and [3] 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. at 268; see also Lockyer v. Mirant Corp., 398 F.3d 1098, 1110 (9th Cir. 2005) (same); ECF
No. 196 at 23. Although Plaintiffs identify these factors, however, they do not discuss them.
Plaintiffs have not shown a significant “hardship or inequity” from “being required to go
forward.” Plaintiffs’ counsel essentially wants to be able to allocate more time to the appeal of his
State Bar suspension than he would have if he also had to work on these cases. That is not
grounds for a stay. It also bears note that the proceedings are unrelated. Usually when a court
considers a motion for stay based on the pendency of another proceeding, the resolution of that
other proceeding bears upon the case in which the motion is made. E.g., Flores v. Bennett, 675 F.
Supp. 3d 1052, 1060 (E.D. Cal. 2023). Here, by contrast, attorney Pavone’s disciplinary
proceedings are completely unrelated to the present cases. Thus, there is no risk of the hardships
that accompany parallel or appellate proceedings, such as inconsistent rulings or discovery
practice that might later found to have been unnecessary.
Finally, it bears mention that Plaintiffs’ counsel’s briefs are filled with inappropriate
sarcasm and ad hominem attacks on opposing counsel. For example, his reply brief states:
Counsel can barely express sufficient gratitude for defense counsel’s
decision to impart her wisdom about case selection, from her
position of authority based on practicing law for 18 months, to an
attorney who was practicing law before she was born.
ECF No. 200 at 12. In a similar vein, he writes, “For defense counsel, four years probably feels
Case 4:21-cv-08545-JST Document 204 Filed 04/03/26 Page 2 of 3

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
United States District Court
Northern District of California
like a long time; it is, after all, 1/7th of the time she has been alive.” Id. at 13. He also describes
Defendants’ opposition brief as “[y]et another installment of hypocrisy.” Id.
Comments like these are beneath the dignity of the Court. The Court fails to understand
why Mr. Pavone thinks that his rude, unprofessional, and sexist comments are good advocacy,
particularly given that the Court has previously ordered him “to cease his uncivil communications
and to conform his conduct to the requirements of Civil Local Rule 11-4 and the civility
guidelines cited in this Order.” ECF No. 138 at 9. While the Court does not deny the motion
because of these comments, they violate the Court’s prior order and cast him in a poor light. He is
again ordered to cease this behavior.
For the foregoing reasons, the motion for stay is denied.
Within 14 days of the issuance of this order, the parties shall propose new dates for “(1)
the February 13, 2026 deadline to select Discovery Pool Plaintiffs; (2) the February 27, 2026
deadline for selected Plaintiffs to file a request for dismissal; [and] (3) the March 13, 2026
deadline to select replacements for dismissed Discovery Pool Plaintiffs.” ECF No. 194 at 2.
Plaintiffs’ pending motions to amend their complaint in Adams v. CDCR (21-cv-08545-JST),
Brown v. CDCR (25-cv-04741-JST), and Underwood v. CDCR (24-cv-4399-JST) are taken under
submission without a hearing.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: April 3, 2026
______________________________________
JON S. TIGAR
United States District Judge
Case 4:21-cv-08545-JST Document 204 Filed 04/03/26 Page 3 of 3