Parker v. J.M. Smucker Co.

Filing 74

ORDER STAYING CASE. Signed by Judge Samuel Conti on December 18, 2014. (sclc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/18/2014).

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

9
10
11

DIANA PARKER, individually and
on behalf of all others
similarly situated,
Plaintiff,

12
13
14
15

v.
J.M. SMUCKER CO.,
Defendant.

16

) Case No. 13-0690 SC
)
) ORDER STAYING CASE
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

17
18

Now pending before the Court is a motion for class

19

certification filed by Plaintiff Diana Parker ("Plaintiff"), ECF

20

No. 53 ("Mot."), and opposed by Defendant J.M. Smucker Co.

21

("Defendant").

22

filed, the Ninth Circuit has docketed an appeal in Jones v. ConAgra

23

Foods, Inc., No. 12-01633 CRB, 2014 WL 2702726 (N.D. Cal. June 13,

24

2014) appeal docketed, No. 14-16327 (9th Cir. 2014), raising three

25

questions central to this motion.

26

the Court determine whether a "precise, objective, and presently

27

ascertainable" class exists?

28

184 F.R.D. 311, 319 (C.D. Cal. 1998).

ECF No. 57-3 ("Opp'n").

Since the motion was

First, by what standard should

See O'Connor v. Boeing N. Am. Inc.,
Second, what is the impact

1

of Comcast Corp. v. Behrend, 133 S. Ct. 1426 (2013) on Plaintiff's

2

alleged damage?

3

injunctive relief for products she has not expressed intent to

4

purchase in the future?

5

Third, does Plaintiff lack standing to seek

The Court has the inherent power to stay proceedings.

See

6

Fuller v. Amerigas Propane, Inc., C 09-2493 THE, 2009 WL 2390358,

7

at *1 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 3, 2009).

8

proceedings, the Court considers "'(1) the possible damage which

9

may result from granting a stay, (2) the hardship or inequity which

In deciding whether to stay

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

10

a party may suffer in being required to go forward, and (3) the

11

orderly course of justice measured in terms of the simplifying or

12

complicating of issues, proof, and questions of law which could be

13

expected to result from a stay.'"

14

cv-04537-LHK, 2014 WL 6986421, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 10, 2014)

15

(quoting Fuller, at *1).

16

Gustavson v. Mars, Inc., No. 13-

Here, these factors weigh in favor of staying proceedings

17

pending the result in Jones.

18

staying proceedings in Gustavson in light of Jones is instructive.

19

As Judge Koh found, regardless of the outcome in Jones, Plaintiff

20

will suffer only relatively slight damage if the stay is granted

21

because the propriety of damages or an injunction is a merits

22

question, unlikely to be resolved prior to the Ninth Circuit's

23

decision.

24

litigation proceeds because, regardless of the outcome in Jones,

25

further discovery and briefing on class certification or

26

decertification will likely be necessary.

27

particularly true because the issues identified above --

28

ascertainability, predominance, and standing -- are central to both

Id. at *3.

On this point, Judge Koh's order

Both parties may suffer hardship if the

2

See id.

This is

1

sides' arguments on class certification.

2

which considers judicial economy, weighs heavily in favor of a

3

stay.

4

certification regardless of the outcome in Jones, and Jones will

5

likely provide the Court with "substantial guidance, if not new

6

law, that will materially impact the Court's decisions in the

7

instant case."

8

favor of a stay.

9

Finally, the last factor,

The Court will likely have to revisit its decision on class

Id.

As a result, these factors weigh heavily in

Accordingly, the Court STAYS proceedings pending the decision

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

10

in Jones.

11

decision in Jones, the parties shall file notice of the decision

12

with the Court.

13

statement outlining their future plans with respect to the motion

14

for class certification.

15

supplemental briefing on the motion, terminate the motion in favor

16

of fully briefing a new motion for class certification, or consider

17

proposals for additional discovery necessary for the parties to

18

address a second motion for class certification.

19

Within fourteen (14) days of the Ninth Circuit's

With that notice the parties shall file a joint

If necessary, the Court will order

If the parties do not file notice and a joint status report

20

following the decision in Jones, the stay will be lifted, and the

21

Court will decide the motion for class certification.

22
23

IT IS SO ORDERED.

24
25

Dated: December 18, 2014

26

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

27
28

3