“[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.” As the Ninth Circuit has stated:
|“||A trial court may, with propriety, find it is efficient for its own docket and the fairest course for the parties to enter a stay of an action before it, pending resolution of independent proceedings which bear upon the case. This rule applies whether the separate proceedings are judicial, administrative, or arbitral in character, and does not require that the issues in such proceedings are necessarily controlling of the action before the court.||”|
In determining whether to grant a stay, courts generally consider the following competing interests: “the possible damage which may result from the granting of a stay, the hardship or inequity which a party may suffer in 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.”
- ↑ Landis v. North Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936) (full-text); see also Ethicon, Inc. v. Quigg, 849 F.2d 1422, 1426-27 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (full-text) (“Courts have inherent power to manage their dockets and stay proceedings.”)
- ↑ Leyva v. Certified Grocers of Cal., Ltd., 593 F.2d 857, 863-64 (9th Cir. 1979) (full-text).
- ↑ Lockyer v. Mirant Corp., 398 F.3d 1098, 1110 (9th Cir. 2005) (full-text) (citation omitted).