Lopez v. Harley-Davidson, Inc.
- Richard Seeborg
- 3:24-cv-04320
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Oksana Lopez v. Harley-Davidson, Judge Seeborg denied Harley-Davidson’s motion to stay proceedings pending its sanctions motion.
Harley-Davidson, Inc., the plaintiffs, and the parties’ ongoing proceedings and discovery.
What happened
In Oksana Lopez, et al. v. Harley-Davidson, Inc., Harley-Davidson asked the court to pause all other proceedings while it awaited a decision on its motion for terminating sanctions. The sanctions motion concerns plaintiffs’ counsel directing a storage facility to dispose of the motorcycle the decedent was riding during the incident at issue.
Harley-Davidson argued that the proceedings should be stayed, but the court found that it had not shown that a stay was warranted. The assigned magistrate judge had denied a related motion to compel without prejudice while the stay request was pending.
Judge Richard Seeborg denied the motion to stay. He directed the parties to proceed as instructed by the magistrate judge, who retained discretion over whether and when the disputed discovery should proceed. Plaintiffs were also directed to file their opposition to the sanctions motion as scheduled.
The detailed version
- Lopez v. Harley-Davidson, Inc. · No. 3:24-cv-04320
- Richard Seeborg
- Sept. 30, 2025
Background
Harley-Davidson moved to stay all other proceedings while the court considered its motion for terminating sanctions. The sanctions motion is based on plaintiffs’ counsel directing a third-party storage facility to dispose of the motorcycle the decedent was riding in the incident underlying the action.
The assigned magistrate judge had denied a motion to compel without prejudice while the court considered whether to issue a stay. Plaintiffs suggested that the outstanding discovery could be relevant to issues in the sanctions motion.
Ruling
The court held that Harley-Davidson had not met its burden to show that a stay was warranted and denied the motion for a stay of proceedings.
The parties were directed to proceed as instructed by the magistrate judge. The magistrate judge retained full discretion to determine whether and when the disputed discovery should proceed. The court also directed plaintiffs to file their opposition to the sanctions motion as scheduled and stated that the parties should presume the sanctions motion would be decided on the current record.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.