Hohenberg v. Ferrero USA, Inc
ORDER granting 21 Ex Parte Motion for Extension of Time to Answer; Ferrero USA, Inc answer due 4/18/2011 and denying Ex Parte Motion to Stay Discovery. Signed by Judge Marilyn L. Huff on 04/04/2011. (ag) (jrl).
Hohenberg v. Ferrero USA, Inc
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 The Court directs the parties to use the above title as the title of the consolidated action 28 in all future filings.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
In re FERRERO LITIGATION,1 CASE NO. 11-CV-205 H (CAB) ORDER (1) GRANTING EX PARTE MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT . (2) DENYING EX PARTE MOTION TO STAY DISCOVERY On March 29, 2011, Defendant Ferrero U.S.A., Inc. ("Ferrero") filed an ex parte motion for an extension of time to respond to Plaintiffs' consolidated complaint and for a stay of discovery. (Doc. No. 21.) On March 30, 2010, Plaintiffs filed a response in opposition to Ferrero's ex parte motion. (Doc. No. 22.) On March 31, 2011, Ferrero filed its reply. (Doc. No. 23.) In its ex parte motion, Ferrero first seeks an extension of time to respond to Plaintiffs' consolidated complaint until thirty (30) days after the Court's order on Ferrero's motion to transfer. (Doc. No. 21.) For good cause shown, the Court GRANTS Ferrero's ex parte motion
1 for extension of time to respond. The Court declines to adopt the response date proposed by 2 Ferrero. Instead, Defendant Ferrero is directed to file any response to Plaintiffs' consolidated 3 complaint on or before April 18, 2011. 4 In its ex parte motion, Ferrero also requests a stay of discovery until after the Court's
5 ruling on Ferrero's motion to transfer, with the exception of venue discovery already 6 propounded by Plaintiffs in connection with the motion to transfer. (Doc. No. 21.) A district 7 court is vested with the discretion to stay an action based on its inherent power to control its 8 own docket. Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936). "A trial court may, with 9 propriety, find it is efficient for its own docket and the fairest course for the parties to enter a 10 stay of an action before it, pending resolution of independent proceedings which bear upon the 11 case." Mediterranean Enters., Inc. v. Ssangyong Corp., 708 F.2d 1458, 1465 (9th Cir. 1983). 12 In considering a stay request, the Court generally considers the following: 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Keating v. Office of Thrift Supervision, 45 F.3d 322, 324-25 (9th Cir. 1995). 20 21 Exercising its sound discretion, the Court declines to stay the discovery in this litigation. In requesting a stay, Ferrero does not address any of the above factors. Instead, it (1) the interest of the plaintiffs in proceeding expeditiously with this litigation or any particular aspect of it, and the potential prejudice to plaintiffs of a delay; (2) the burden which any particular aspect of the proceedings may impose on defendants; (3) the convenience of the court in the management of its cases, and the efficient use of judicial resources; (4) the interests of persons not parties to the civil litigation; and (5) the interest of the public in the pending civil and criminal litigation.
22 conclusively argues that prior to the Court's ruling on Ferrero's motion to transfer, "it should 23 not be required to press forward with litigation in the interim, including . . . engaging in 24 general (i.e., non-venue related), discovery with multiple plaintiffs." (Doc. No. 21-1 at 3.) 25 /// 26 /// 27 /// 28 ///
1 After considering the applicable standards for a stay of litigation and the parties' arguments, 2 the Court DENIES Ferrero's ex parte motion to stay. 3 IT IS SO ORDERED.
4 DATED: April 4, 2011 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
______________________________ MARILYN L. HUFF, District Judge UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT