Bryant Vineyards Ltd v. Ridenhour
- Edward Chen
- 3:19-cv-04363
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 1
In Bryant Vineyards Ltd. v. Ridenhour, Judge Chen denied the plaintiff’s application to stay the transfer order.
Bryant Vineyards Ltd.’s request to pause the transfer order was denied; the opinion does not provide further details about the transfer order’s effect.
What happened
Bryant Vineyards Ltd. asked the court to pause its transfer order while another action was resolved.
The court treated the request as a Landis stay, which allows a court to pause proceedings in appropriate circumstances.
The court denied the application. Judge Edward W. Chen stated that the order disposed of Docket No. 46.
The detailed version
- Bryant Vineyards Ltd v. Ridenhour · No. 3:19-cv-04363
- Edward Chen
- Nov. 6, 2019
Background
Bryant Vineyards Ltd., which the opinion also calls “the Winery,” filed an ex parte application asking the court to stay, or pause, the court’s transfer order. The application was filed at Docket No. 46.
Court’s analysis
The court stated that, because the plaintiff sought to stay a district-court proceeding pending resolution of another action, the request was a Landis stay. A Landis stay is a discretionary pause of proceedings under the authority recognized in Landis v. North American Co. and later cases. The court cited authority stating that a district court has discretionary power to stay proceedings in its own court.
Ruling
The court denied the plaintiff’s ex parte application to stay the transfer order. It stated that the order disposed of Docket No. 46.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.