Anthony v. Stephen

1
25-cv-01550-DMS-BLM
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
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
MARIAN ANTHONY,
Plaintiff,
v.
SHAWN STEPHEN,
Defendant.
Case No.: 25-cv-01550-DMS-BLM
ORDER STAYING CASE SUA
SPONTE; VACATING HEARING
DATE
This matter comes before the Court sua sponte. On October 21, 2025, the Court
granted Defendant’s motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s original Complaint (“MTD Order”).
(ECF No. 25). On November 5, 2025, Plaintiff filed his First Amended Complaint
(“FAC”). (ECF No. 18). On November 17, 2025, Plaintiff appealed to the Ninth Circuit,
challenging this Court’s MTD Order. (ECF No. 25).
Currently pending before the Court are several motions: (1) Plaintiff’s motion to
vacate the MTD Order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(B)(3), (ECF No. 17); (2)
Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of order denying motion to set trial date and for pre-
trial scheduling conference, (ECF No. 21); and (3) Defendant’s motion to dismiss
Plaintiff’s FAC, (ECF No. 28). Defendant’s motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s FAC is set for
hearing on Friday, January 16, 2026, at 1:30 p.m. (ECF No. 28). For the following reasons,
Case 3:25-cv-01550-DMS-BLM Document 29 Filed 11/28/25 PageID.<pageID>
Page 1 of 3

2
25-cv-01550-DMS-BLM
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 Court, sua sponte, stays the case until the resolution of the appeal filed in the Ninth
Circuit.
I. LEGAL STANDARD
“[T]he 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 v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936).
“How this can best be done calls for the exercise of judgment, which must weigh competing
interests and maintain an even balance.” Id. at 254–55 (internal citations omitted). These
interests include: (1) “the possible damage which may result from granting 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.” Lockyer
v. Mirant Corp., 398 F.3d 1098, 1110 (9th Cir. 2005) (internal citations omitted).
“Generally, stays should not be indefinite in nature.” Dependable Highway Express, Inc.
v. Navigators Ins. Co., 498 F.3d 1059, 1066 (9th Cir. 2007). “Courts have the power to
stay proceedings sua sponte.” Owino v. CoreCivic, Inc., No. 17-CV-1112 JLS (NLS), 2018
WL 11282678, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 16, 2018) (internal citations omitted).
II. DISCUSSION
The Court, sua sponte, stays this case “pending resolution of the Ninth Circuit appeal
. . . to facilitate the efficient and orderly resolution of the case.” Fussell v. Washington,
No. 2:25-CV-01865-RAJ, 2025 WL 3241690, at *1 (W.D. Wash. Nov. 20, 2025). First,
the Court finds no risk of damage or hardship from staying the case. The stay is temporary.
Such a temporary stay “will not cause any needless delay of the resolution of the case” at
this early stage. See Hart v. Weyrich, No. 2:23-CV-884, 2023 WL 5015616, at *1 (W.D.
Wash. Aug. 7, 2023). Further, the Court finds that “judicial efficiency weighs in favor of
a stay.” Elec. Solidus, Inc. v. Proton Mgmt. Ltd., No. 2:24-CV-08280 MWC-EX, 2025
WL 1712363, at *4 (C.D. Cal. May 27, 2025). The Court is divested of jurisdiction from
some of Plaintiff’s claims, like his intentional infliction of emotional distress claim. See
Case 3:25-cv-01550-DMS-BLM Document 29 Filed 11/28/25 PageID.<pageID>
Page 2 of 3

3
25-cv-01550-DMS-BLM
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
Griggs v. Provident Consumer Disc. Co., 459 U.S. 56, 58 (1982) (finding that “[t]he
filing of a notice of appeal . . . confers jurisdiction on the court of appeals and divests the
district court of its control over those aspects of the case involved in the appeal”).
Additionally, a decision by the Ninth Circuit may impact how the Court would otherwise
rule on the pending motions (particularly Plaintiff’s motion to vacate the MTD Order and
Defendant’s motion to dismiss the FAC). Considering the above, the Court stays the case
pending the outcome of Plaintiff’s appeal to the Ninth Circuit. The stay shall automatically
lift upon resolution of the appeal.
III. CONCLUSION
Considering the foregoing, the Court STAYS the action, sua sponte, until the
resolution of the appeal filed in the Ninth Circuit. The hearing for Defendant’s motion to
dismiss the FAC is VACATED. The parties are ORDERED to not file any further
motions. The parties are further ORDERD to file with this Court a joint status report
within 48 hours of the Ninth Circuit’s decision on the appeal.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: November 28, 2025
_________________________________
Hon. Dana M. Sabraw
United States District Judge
Case 3:25-cv-01550-DMS-BLM Document 29 Filed 11/28/25 PageID.<pageID>
Page 3 of 3