Ang et al v. Bimbo Bakeries USA, Inc.

Filing 161

**CORRECTED** ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THE COURT SHOULD NOT STAY THIS ACTION PENDING RESOLUTION OF THIRD-PARTY APPEALS. Signed by Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. on 3/25/2016. (hsglc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/25/2016)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

ALEX ANG, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Case No. 13-cv-01196-HSG

v.
BIMBO BAKERIES USA, INC.,

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THE
COURT SHOULD NOT STAY THIS
ACTION PENDING RESOLUTION OF
THIRD-PARTY APPEALS

Defendant.

12
13

On February 18, 2015, Plaintiffs Alex Ang and Lynn Streit moved for class certification in

14

this action. Dkt. No. 102. The parties fully briefed the motion and the Court held a hearing on the

15

matter on May 6, 2015. Dkt. No. 133. Since that time, two appeals have remained pending in the

16

Ninth Circuit that address important questions of law that are at issue in this case. Those appeals

17

are Jones v. ConAgra Foods, Inc., No. 14-16327 (9th Cir. Nov. 24, 2014), which addresses the

18

issue of ascertainability in low-cost consumer class actions, and Brazil v. Dole Packaged Foods,

19

LLC, No. 14-17480 (9th Cir. Dec. 18, 2014), which addresses the proper standard to apply to

20

damages models under Comcast Corp. v. Behrend, ––– U.S. –––, 133 S. Ct. 1426, 1432 (2013).

21

In light of those pending appeals, several courts in this district have stayed cases similar to

22

this one. E.g., Koller v. Med Foods, Inc., No. 14-CV-02400 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 14, 2015); Samet v.

23

Kellogg Co., No. 12-CV-1891, 2015 WL 6954989, at *2 (N. D. Cal. Nov. 10, 2015) (partial stay);

24

Thomas v. Costco Wholesale Corp., 12-CV-02908, 2015 WL 6674696, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 2,

25

2015); Park v. Welch, No. 12-CV-06449, Dkt. 77 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 22, 2015); Astiana v. Hain

26

Celestial Group, Inc., No. 11-CV-06342, Dkt. 114 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 9, 2015); Wilson v. Frito-Lay

27

North America, No. 12-CV-1586-SC, 2015 WL 4451424, at *2 (N.D. Cal. July 20, 2015);

28

Leonhart v. Nature’s Path Foods, Inc., No. 13-CV-00492, 2015 WL 3548212, at *3-4 (N.D. Cal.

1

June 5, 2015); Pardini v. Unilever United States, No. 13-CV-01675, 2015 WL 1744340, at *3

2

(N.D. Cal. Apr. 15, 2015); Allen v. ConAgra Foods, No. 13-CV-01279 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 20, 2015);

3

Parker v. J.M. Smucker Co., No. 13-CV-00690 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 18, 2014) (Dkt. No. 74);

4

Gustavson v. Mars, Inc., No. 13-CV-04537, 2014 WL 6986421, at *2-4 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 10, 2014).

5

For these reasons, the Court hereby ORDERS the parties to show cause why a similar stay

6

should not issue in this case. The parties are directed to meet and confer, then submit briefs of no

7

longer than five pages setting forth their position on the propriety of a stay by April 1, 2016. If the

8

parties agree one way or the other, they may submit a joint statement reflecting their shared

9

position. After reviewing the parties’ filing(s), the Court will determine whether further briefing

10

on the issue is appropriate.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 25, 2016

14
15
HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.
United States District Judge

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2