United States of America v. 14.368 Acres, More or Less, Situated in Kern County, State of California, et al.

[4] 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA [7] 8 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Case No. 1:24-cv-00185-CDB 9 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO STAY 10 v. (Doc. 39) 11 14.368 ACRES, MORE OR LESS, SITUATED IN KERN COUNTY, 12 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al., 13 Defendants. [14] 15 This is a condemnation proceeding by Plaintiff the United States of America pursuant to 16 the Declaration of Taking Act, 40 U.S.C. § 3114 . (Doc. 1). On October 6, 2025, the Court 17 granted Plaintiff’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, finding that the subject condemnation 18 was constitutionally permissible and consistent with federal law. (Doc. 38). In general, what 19 remains for the case is the scheduling of discovery, pretrial motions and trial on the issue of just 20 compensation for the taking. 21 On October 21, 2025, Plaintiff filed a motion to stay. (Doc. 36). Respondent argues a 22 stay is warranted because appropriations to the Department of Justice [“DOJ”] (by whom counsel 23 for Respondent is employed) and to the Federal Aviation Administration [“FAA”] (the relevant 24 agency in this proceeding) lapsed upon expiration of the relevant appropriations acts on 25 September 30, 2025. Id. at 1 . As such, Plaintiff explains that neither DOJ nor FAA counsel or 26 staff are permitted to work on this matter until Congress has restored appropriations. Id. at 2 . 27 Plaintiff represents that counsel for defendant Precious Earth Inc. opposes staying the case. Id. 1 I. Standard of Law 2 “[T]he power to stay proceedings is incidental to the power inherent in every court to 3 control the disposition of the causes on its docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for 4 counsel, and for litigants.” Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936); Lockyer v. Mirant 5 Corp, 398 F.3d 1098 , 1109 (9th Cir. 2005). “[I]f there is even a fair possibility that the . . . stay 6 will work damage to someone else, the party seeking the stay must make out a clear case of 7 hardship or inequity.” Lockyer, 398 F.3d at 1112; United States v. Aerojet Rocketdyne Holdings, 8 Inc., 381 F. Supp. 3d 1240, 1250 (E.D. Cal. May 8, 2019). 9 In considering whether to grant a stay, this Court must weigh several factors, including 10 “[1] the possible damage which may result from the granting of a stay, [2] the hardship or 11 inequity which a party may suffer in being required to go forward, and [3] the orderly course of 12 justice measured in terms of the simplifying or complicating of issues, proof, and questions of law 13 which could be expected to result from a stay.” CMAX, Inc. v. Hall, 300 F.2d 265 , 268 (9th Cir. 14 1962) (citing Landis, 299 U.S. at 254–55). In granting a stay, a court must weigh “the length of 15 the stay against the strength of the justification given for it.” Yong v. I.N.S., 208 F.3d 1116 , 1119 16 (9th Cir. 2000). “If a stay is especially long or its term is indefinite, [courts] require a greater 17 showing to justify it.” Id. 18 II. Discussion 19 In the pending motion, Plaintiff fails to weigh or even acknowledge the CMAX factors. 20 While the Court acknowledges its discretion to temporarily stay proceedings under the 21 circumstances described by Plaintiff in its motion, the Court does not find that the balance of 22 CMAX factors favors staying proceedings. The Court already has continued the scheduling 23 conference to permit time for the pleadings to settle (Doc. 40) and Plaintiff retains recourse to 24 seeking a further continuance in the event the government shutdown prevents it from adequately 25 preparing for and appearing at that scheduling conference. Counsel for Plaintiff is admonished 26 that the Court disfavors motions seeking extensions of time filed on or after the deadline sought 27 to be extended. See Local Rule 144(d) (“Counsel shall seek to obtain a necessary extension from 1 | becomes apparent. Requests for Court-approved extensions brought on the required filing date for 2 | the pleading or other document are looked upon with disfavor.”). 3 Conclusion and Order 4 Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED, Plaintiff’s motion to stay (Doc. 39) is DENIED. 5 | IT IS SO ORDERED. ° Dated: _ October 22, 2025 | Ww VL D R~ 7 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE