Sprint Communications Company L.P. v. Pacific Bell Telephone Company et al

Filing 58

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER signed by Chief Judge Morrison C. England, Jr. on 12/15/2014 GRANTING 48 Pacific Bell's Motion for a Temporary Stay; all proceedings in this case are hereby STAYED pending a final ruling by the MDL Panel; the parties are directed to file a joint status report advising the Court of the status of the motion pending before the MDL Panel every 45 days. CASE STAYED(Reader, L) Modified on 12/16/2014 (Reader, L).

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12

SPRINT COMMUNICATIONS
COMPANY L.P.,
Plaintiff,

13
14
15
16
17
18

v.

No. 2:14-cv-01257-MCE-CKD

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

PACIFIC BELL TELEPHONE
COMPANY D/B/A AT&T CALIFORNIA;
VERIZON CALIFORNIA, INC.;
SUREWEST TELEPHONE; AND
SUREWEST TELEVIDEO,
Defendants.

19

This is one of over 60 similar actions filed by Sprint Communications Company

20

L.P. (“Sprint”) or affiliates of Verizon in various federal district courts across the United

21

States. The issue in each case is the same: whether long-distance phone companies

22

are entitled to refunds for switched access charges paid to local phone companies in

23

connection with the long-distance companies’ use of switched access services

24

purchased from the local phone companies to route certain phone calls between

25

wireless and wireline phone customers.

26

On September 19, 2014, one of the defendants in 28 of the 60 cases,

27

CenturyLink, filed a motion with the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (“MDL

28

Panel”) to transfer the 28 CenturyLink actions to a single federal district court for
1

1

coordinated proceedings. See In re: IntraMTA Switched Access Charges Litigation,

2

MDL No. 2587. On October 8, 2014, CenturyLink identified the 39 other actions,

3

including this case, as related actions. Subsequently, on October 16, 2014, some of the

4

parties in those 39 actions filed responses asking the MDL Panel to consolidate all the

5

cases. The MDL Panel heard the motion on December 4, 2014, usually takes two

6

weeks to issue a decision. Mot., ECF No. 48-1 at 11.

7

Defendant Pacific Bell Telephone Company (“Pacific Bell”) requests that the Court

8

temporarily stay this lawsuit, including any Rule 16 Scheduling Conference or other

9

pretrial activity, until the MDL Panel decides CenturyLink’s motion. ECF No. 48. For the

10

reasons set forth below, the Motion for a Temporary Stay of Proceedings Pending a

11

Final Ruling of the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation is GRANTED.1

12
13

STANDARD

14
15

A “trial court may, with propriety, find it is efficient for its own docket and the

16

fairest course for the parties to enter a stay of an action before it, pending resolution of

17

independent proceedings which bear upon the case.” Mediterranean Enters., Inc. v.

18

Ssangyong Corp., 708 F.2d 1458, 1465 (9th Cir. 1983) (quoting Leyva v. Certified

19

Grocers of Cal., Ltd., 593 F.2d 857, 863-64 (9th Cir. 1979)). The power to issue a stay

20

derives from a federal district court’s power to control its docket and ensure that cases

21

before it are justly determined. Leyva, 593 F.2d at 864. When considering a motion to

22

stay, the court weighs a series of competing interests:

23

the possible damage which may result from the granting of a
stay, the hardship or inequity which a party may suffer in
being required to go forward, and the orderly course of justice
measured in terms of the simplifying or complicating of
issues, proof, and questions of law which could be expected
to result from a stay.

24
25
26
27
1

28

Because oral argument will not be of material assistance, the Court ordered this matter
submitted on the briefs. E.D. Cal. Local Rule 230(g); see ECF No. 57.

2

1

CMAX, Inc. v. Hall, 300 F.2d 265, 268 (9th Cir.1962) (citing Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299

2

U.S. 248, 254-55)).

3
4

DISCUSSION

5
6

The interests of judicial economy and efficiency are served by staying this case

7

until the motion before the MDL Panel has been decided. Going forward on this matter

8

risks wasting judicial resources, as the Court will have to familiarize itself with a case that

9

may soon be transferred. This is critical because currently pending before the Court is

10

Pacific Bell’s pending Motion to Dismiss or, in the alternative, Stay this Action and Refer

11

the Controlling Legal Issues to the Federal Communications Commission (ECF No. 37),

12

which is scheduled to be heard in this court on January 8, 2015.

13

In addition, the Court is not convinced that the short stay anticipated will cause a

14

hardship to Sprint. Sprint argues that the instant Motion for a Temporary Stay is an

15

attempt by Pacific Bell to delay the litigation so that it does not have to make Rule

16

26(a)(1) disclosures that would be helpful to Sprint’s defense of the motion before the

17

MDL Panel. See Sprint Opp., ECF No. 54 at 4. Even if this were Pacific Bell’s true

18

motivation, however, the argument is now moot because briefing in the multidistrict case

19

was completed weeks ago and the hearing was held on December 4. Thus, it is too late

20

for the 26(a)(1) disclosures to help Sprint’s defense.

21
22

Therefore, because the interest of judicial economy outweighs any potential harm
to the parties, the Court finds that a stay of all proceedings is appropriate in this case.

23
24

CONCLUSION

25
26

For the reasons set forth above, Pacific Bell’s Motion for a Temporary Stay of

27

Proceedings, ECF No. 37, is GRANTED. All proceedings in this case are hereby stayed

28

pending a final ruling by the MDL Panel on In re: IntraMTA Switched Access Charges
3

1

Litigation, MDL No. 2587. The parties are directed to file a Joint Status Report advising

2

the Court of the status of the motion pending before the MDL Panel every forty-five (45)

3

days; the first such report must be filed not later than forty-five (45) days after this Order

4

is electronically filed. Failure to do so may result in monetary sanctions and/or dismissal

5

of this action for noncompliance with the Court’s Order and/or the failure to prosecute.

6

IT IS SO ORDERED.

7

Dated: December 15, 2014

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4