Wright Transportation, Inc. v. Pilot Corporation et al
ORDER denying 7 Motion to Stay. Signed by Magistrate Judge Katherine P. Nelson on 8/19/2013. (srr)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
WRIGHT TRANSPORTATION, INC.,
PILOT CORPORATION, et al.,
CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:13-00352-N
This action is before the Court on defendants’ motion (doc. 7) to temporarily stay
all proceedings in the above captioned action pending final approval of the nationwide
class settlement filed in National Trucking Financial Reclamation Services, LLC, et al. v.
Pilot Corp. et al., No. 4:13-cv-00250, in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Arkansas, or pending a determination by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation (“JPML”) that this and other related actions should be consolidated and
transferred pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407. This matter has been referred to the
undersigned Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(a) and (b) and Standing Order
6 of this Court.
Upon consideration of the motion (doc. 7), plaintiff’s response in
opposition thereto (doc. 12), defendants’ reply (doc. 13) and all other pertinent portions
of the record, it is ORDERED that the motion to stay is hereby DENIED.
This action is one of many actions brought in federal and state courts throughout
the country alleging that the defendants have withheld rebates or discounts owed to their
customers based on contracts for the purchase of diesel fuel.
reasons why they propose that this action should be stayed:
Defendants allege three
[I]f approved, and to the extent Plaintiff does not-opt out of the
settling class, the Global Settlement [cited above] will resolve and
extinguish all the claims asserted in the present case. In such circumstances,
it would not serve judicial economy or promote the just and efficient
conduct of the litigation to allow this action to proceed any further at this
2. [E]ven if the Global Settlement does not ultimately extinguish the
claims here, the present case should be temporarily stayed pending the
Fairness Hearing to allow for coordination and possible consolidation with
any remaining Pilot Actions.
[T]he potential conflicts with and interference from the parallel
criminal investigation into the allegations underlying Plaintiff’s claims also
weigh in favor of a temporary stay.
(Doc. 13 at 2).
Plaintiff argues, in sum, that it is prejudiced by any delay in obtaining
the discovery necessary to evaluate the settlement proposal and that defendants have
demonstrated thus far that they “are well able to speak and defend themselves, as well as
access relevant customer information.”
(Doc. 12 at 10).
Defendants do not dispute
that the amount of a customer’s claim will be dependent on, inter alia, “the weighted
[average price/volume throughout the month” and
You gotta weight it, right? It’s not just an aggregate. If you
bought 500 gallons in 30 days, unless you bought the exact
same amount on each of the 30 days, that’s the only way that
average holds true.
Doc. 1-1 (Exh. A to Plaintiff’s Complaint) at ¶ 69.
Nor do defendants dispute that they
have unilaterally conducted an audit, contacted customers and begun to return monies
due their customers plus interest prior to any purported settlement or agreement.
12 at 11).
Defendants thus appear to possess and are using, despite the criminal
investigation, the information required by the plaintiff to evaluate a purported settlement.
“The District Court has broad discretion to stay proceedings as an incident to its
power to control its own docket.” Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 706 (1997); see also
Dominguez v. Hartford Financial Services Group, Inc., 530 F. Supp.2d 902, 905
(S.D. Tex. 2008) (“The stay of a pending matter is ordinarily within the trial court’s wide
discretion to control the course of litigation ....”); Utah v. Eli Lilly and Co., 509 F.
Supp.2d 1016, 1019 (D. Utah 2007) (recognizing discretion to stay proceedings to save
time and effort for parties and court). Indeed, “the power to stay proceedings is incidental
to the power inherent in every court to control the disposition of the causes on its docket
with economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants. How this can
best be done calls for the exercise of judgment, which must weigh competing interests
and maintain an even balance.” Landis v. North American Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254-55, 57
S.Ct. 163, 81 L.Ed. 153 (1936).
Defendants also contend that, “[w]hile the JPML ultimately declined to centralize
the federal Pilot Actions for the time being because it could disrupt the settlement
proceedings, the JPML’s ruling clearly indicates that any federal Pilot Actions remaining
after the Fairness Hearing, including this case, will likely be subject to centralization
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407.”
(Doc. 13 at 4). The mere possibility that this action
might be subject to consolidation by the JPML is insufficient grounds to stay the action at
Boudin v. ATM Holdings, Inc., 2007 WL 1841066, *1 (S.D. Ala. June 27,
2007); see also Jozwiak v. Stryker Corp., 2010 WL 147143, *2 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 11, 2010)
(“a district judge should not automatically stay discovery, postpone rulings on pending
motions, or generally suspend further rulings upon a parties’ motion to the MDL panel
for transfer and consolidation”) (citations omitted); Toppins v. 3M Co., 2006 WL 12993,
*1 (E.D. Mo. Jan. 3, 2006) (“A court need not automatically stay a case merely because a
party has moved the MDL for transfer and consolidation.”).
In this case, the undersigned finds that the Motion to Stay is premature.
no reason why this action cannot move forward with preliminary steps in the interim.
Regardless of the outcome of the proposed Global Settlement if the plaintiff here opts out
or whether and where the JPML ultimately transfers this action for consolidated
and coordinated pretrial proceedings, defendants will need to file answers or responsive
pleadings. Should any of those defendants see fit to file Rule 12(b) motions, those
motions will need to be briefed. Entering a stay at this juncture and under these
circumstances would not rescue defendants from material hardship or the risk of
inconsistent adjudications; after all, they must answer the Complaint anyway, and the
likelihood of adjudication of any merits issues prior to “the fairness hearing scheduled for
November 25, 2013” (doc. 13 at 6) appears quite slim. By all appearances, the only
tangible effect of entering a stay at this time would be to allow defendants a reprieve
before being required to answer the allegations brought by plaintiffs in the Complaint.
Such a protracted delay appears both unnecessary and unwarranted. By contrast, it would
benefit both the parties and the transferee court (assuming there is one) to have a clear
picture of the issues joined and the defenses raised, with briefing of any threshold legal
issues already completed, at the time of any transfer order by the MDL Panel.
For all of the foregoing reasons, it is ORDERED that defendants’ motion to stay
is hereby DENIED.
day of August, 2013.
/s/ Katherine P. Nelson
KATHERINE P. NELSON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?