UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
May 16, 2011
MARY T. MORGAN, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hon. Roger T. Benitez United States District Judge
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO STAY
Pro se Plaintiff Mykal Ryan has filed a motion that the Court will construe as a motion to stay the case. (Doc. No. 17.) The trial court has inherent authority to control its own docket and calendar, including the issuance of a stay when appropriate. Landis v. N. American Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936). The party seeking the stay bears the burden of establishing the need for it. Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 708 (1997). Plaintiff has not demonstrated why the Court should stay the case. Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion is DENIED.
The Court will, however, extend the time for Plaintiff to file an opposition to Defendant's pending motion to dismiss. Plaintiff must file his opposition or statement of non-opposition on or before May 27, 2011. Plaintiff's failure to file an opposition by May 27, 2011 will be considered a consent to the granting of the motion under Civil Local Rule 7.1(f)(3)(c). Defendant's Reply must be filed on or before June 6, 2011 and the hearing on Defendant's motion is continued to June 13, 2011 at 10:30 a.m.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.