Ang et al v. Bimbo Bakeries USA, Inc.

Filing 163

ORDER STAYING CASE PENDING RESOLUTION OF THIRD-PARTY APPEALS. Signed by Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. on 3/31/2016. (ndrS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/31/2016)

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.,
Defendant.

ORDER STAYING CASE PENDING
RESOLUTION OF THIRD-PARTY
APPEALS
Re: Dkt. No. 161

12
13

On March 25, 2016, the Court ordered the parties to show cause why this case should not

14

be stayed pending the resolution of two pending third-party appeals that address important

15

questions of law at issue in this case. Dkt. No. 161. Those appeals are Jones v. ConAgra Foods,

16

Inc., No. 14-16327 (9th Cir. Nov. 24, 2014), which addresses the issue of ascertainability in low-

17

cost consumer class actions, and Brazil v. Dole Packaged Foods, LLC, No. 14-17480 (9th Cir.

18

Dec. 18, 2014), which addresses the proper standard to apply to damages models under Comcast

19

Corp. v. Behrend, –– U.S. –––, 133 S. Ct. 1426, 1432 (2013). As the Court previously noted,

20

several courts in this district have stayed cases similar to this one in light of those pending appeals.

21

See, e.g., Koller v. Med. Foods, Inc., No. 14-CV-02400 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 14, 2015).

22

On March 29, 2016, the parties submitted a joint statement in response to the Court’s OSC,

23

advising that they met and conferred as directed and that “no party opposes a stay of this action

24

pending the resolution of the third-party appeals listed in the OSC.” Dkt. No. 162 at 1.

25

“A district court has the inherent power to stay its proceedings. This power to stay is

26

incidental to the power inherent in every court to control the disposition of the causes on its docket

27

with economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants.” Fuller v. Amerigas

28

Propane, Inc., 09-CV-2493, 2009 WL 2390358, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 3, 2009) (internal quotation

1

omitted). In considering whether a stay is appropriate, the court should weigh three factors: “[1]

2

the possible damage which may result from the granting of a stay, [2] the hardship or inequity

3

which a party may suffer in being required to go forward, and [3] the orderly course of justice

4

measured in terms of the simplifying or complicating of issues, proof, and questions of law which

5

could be expected to result from a stay.” Id. (quoting CMAX, Inc. v. Hall, 300 F.2d 265, 268 (9th

6

Cir. 1962) (citing Landis v. N. Am. Co., 99 U.S. 248, 254-55 (1936))).

7

Applying these factors, the Court finds that a stay is warranted in this case. Under the first

8

two factors, the Court finds that there is no risk of damage or prejudice to either Plaintiffs or

9

Defendant that would flow from staying this matter. Neither party opposes the proposed stay,
strongly suggesting that staying the case will not damage them or prejudice their interests. Under

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

the third and final factor, which is dispositive here, the Court finds that it would be an inefficient

12

and imprudent use of judicial resources to rule on the pending motion for class certification when

13

the Ninth Circuit may offer “substantial guidance, if not new law, that will materially impact the

14

Court’s discussion in the instant case.” See Gustavson v. Mars, Inc., No. 13-CV-04537, 2014 WL

15

6986421, at **2-4 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 10, 2014). While it is true that “[o]nly in rare circumstances

16

will a litigant in one cause be compelled to stand aside while a litigant in another settles the rule of

17

law that will define the rights of both,” Landis, 299 U.S. at 255, “[i]n the context of the emerging

18

body of cases involving food product labeling . . . numerous courts in this district have concluded

19

that the circumstances warrant waiting for further circuit guidance prior to proceeding with class

20

certification,” Koller, No. 14-CV-02400 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 14, 2015) at 2.

21

Accordingly, the Court hereby STAYS this entire action pending decisions by the Ninth

22

Circuit in the Jones and Brazil appeals. Based on future developments, either party may seek to

23

lift or modify the stay by filing an appropriately noticed motion.

24
25

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: 3/31/2016

26
27
HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.
United States District Judge

28
2