Fraizier et al v. Wireless Lifestyle, Inc.

Filing 27

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO STAY ACTION PENDING RESOLUTION OF MOTION TO TRANSFER TO MDL; VACATING JANUARY 13, 2012 HEARING. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on January 9, 2012. (mmclc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/9/2012)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10
11

KEVIN FRAZIER, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

12
13
14
15

No. C-11-5192 MMC
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S
MOTION TO STAY ACTION PENDING
RESOLUTION OF MOTION TO
TRANSFER TO MDL; VACATING
JANUARY 13, 2012 HEARING

v.
WIRELESS LIFESTYLE, INC.,
Defendant.

/

16
17

Before the Court is defendant Wireless Lifestyle, Inc.’s “Motion to Stay Action

18

Pending Resolution of Motion to Transfer to MDL,” filed November 17, 2011. Plaintiffs

19

Kevin Frazier and DeJesus Libran have filed opposition, to which defendant has replied.

20

Having read and considered the papers submitted in support of and in opposition to the

21

motion, the Court deems the matter suitable for decision on the parties’ respective written

22

submissions, VACATES the hearing scheduled for January 13, 2012, and rules as follows.

23

The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (“JPML”) has scheduled a January 26,

24

2012 hearing on the motion to transfer filed by defendant. See In re Wireless Lifestyle,

25

Inc., Fair Labor Standards Act and Wage and Hour Litigation, MDL No. 2322, Doc. No. 17.

26

A decision on the matter will in all likelihood be made shortly thereafter, and, consequently,

27

the stay sought by defendant will be of short duration. In light of the anticipated brevity of

28

the stay, and plaintiffs’ having not identified any prejudice they are likely to incur if the case

1

is stayed pending the JPML’s decision, and because a stay may both conserve judicial

2

resources and promote consistency in the determination of common issues, the Court finds

3

a stay of the proceedings herein is appropriate. See Rivers v. Walt Disney Co., 980 F.

4

Supp. 1358, 1360 (C.D. Cal. 1997) (identifying factors to consider when determining

5

whether to stay action pending decision by JPML).

6

Accordingly, defendants’ motion for a stay is hereby GRANTED.

7

IT IS SO ORDERED.

8
9

Dated: January 9, 2012
MAXINE M. CHESNEY
United States District Judge

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2