A district court has inherent authority to stay before it, pending resolution of independent proceedings which bear upon the case.  The stay order is reviewed for abuse of discretion. When deciding whether to issue a docket management stay, the district court must weigh: (1) the possible damage which may result from the granting of a stay; (2) the hardship or inequity which a party may suffer in being required to go forward; and (3) the orderly course of justice measured in terms of the simplifying or complicating of issues, proof, and questions of law.  Here, the district court did not err in holding that a stay pending the bankruptcy court’s resolution of identical issues in PG&E’s bankruptcy case would promote judicial efficiency even though that court’s findings would not be binding on the district court and would have to be re-litigated as to the individual defendants in this securities fraud suit.  However, the district court did abuse its discretion in not weighing the prejudice to the plaintiffs in the prolonged stay that it ordered, particularly since the defendants raised no prejudice to themselves from proceeding without a stay.  Merely having to defend the lawsuit was not prejudice for this purpose.