Giampaoli et al v. Anheuser-Busch Companies, LLC

Filing 22

ORDER by Judge Edward M. Chen Granting 11 Plaintiffs' Motion to Stay. (emcsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/23/2013)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 NINA GIAMPAOLI, et al., 9 Plaintiffs, v. 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 No. C-13-0828 EMC ANHEUSER-BUSCH COMPANIES, LLC, 12 ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO STAY Defendant. ___________________________________/ (Docket No. 11) 13 14 15 Currently pending before the Court is Plaintiffs’ motion to stay this matter until the Judicial 16 Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) rules on Plaintiffs’ motion to transfer and consolidate this 17 and five other cases. Based on its review of the papers, the Court concludes a hearing on the motion 18 is not necessary and a ruling may be issued based on the papers alone. 19 Courts considering motions to stay pending a JPML ruling should take into account: (1) the 20 possibility of hardship or prejudice to the parties; and (2) the interest of conserving judicial 21 resources. See, e.g., Genetic Techs. Ltd. v. Agilent Techs., Inc., No. C-12-1616 RS, 2012 WL 22 2906571, at *2 (N.D. Cal. July 16, 2012). A stay of this matter would result in minimal prejudice to 23 Defendant. The JPML hearing on Plaintiffs’ motion to transfer and consolidate is currently 24 scheduled for May 30, 2013, suggesting that a stay would be in effect for only a short period of time. 25 If the JPML denies Plaintiffs’ motion, this Court can quickly resume consideration of Defendant’s 26 pending motion to dismiss. If the JPML grants the motion, staying this action serves judicial 27 economy, as a potential transferee court could consider similar legal and factual questions in a 28 coordinated fashion. 1 Thus, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ motion to stay and stays this action pending resolution 2 of Plaintiffs’ motion to transfer and consolidate currently before the JPML. The Court hereby stays 3 all pending deadlines in the case and takes off calendar the hearings for Plaintiffs’ motion to stay 4 and Defendant’s motion to dismiss. The case management conference is re-set for June 20, 2013. 5 Plaintiff’s motion to shorten time is denied as moot. 6 This order disposes of Docket Nos. 11 and 16. 7 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. 9 Dated: April 23, 2013 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 _________________________ EDWARD M. CHEN United States District Judge 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2