Devore et al v. Prospect Mortgage, LLC

Filing 43

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO STAY AND CONTINUING CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE. Initial Case Management Conference set for 1/9/2014 10:00 AM in Courtroom 3, 17th Floor, San Francisco. Signed by Judge Richard Seeborg on 10/3/13. (cl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/3/2013)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

9

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13
14
15

Case No. 13-cv-01841 RS

JAVAN DEVORE, et al.,

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
STAY AND CONTINUING CASE
MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

Plaintiffs,
v.
PROSPECT MORTGAGE, LLC,
Defendant.
____________________________________/

16
17

Defendant’s motion to stay this action pending a decision by the Judicial Panel on

18

Multidistrict Litigation as to whether it will be transferred to a coordinated proceeding is suitable for

19

disposition without oral argument, pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b). The hearing set for October

20

7, 2013 is therefore vacated.

21

A court is not deprived of its jurisdiction or otherwise limited in its ability to

22

proceed with a case merely because a party has filed a motion for consolidation with the MDL

23

panel. In re Air Crash Disaster at Paris, France, on March 3, 1974, 376 F. Supp. 887, 888

24

(J.P.M.L. 1974). Nevertheless, courts have the inherent authority to stay proceedings as a way “to

25

control [their] docket and promote efficient use of judicial resources.” Dependable Highway Exp.,

26

Inc. v. Navigators Ins. Co., 498 F.3d 1059, 1066 (9th Cir. 2007). District courts considering

27

virtually identical stay motions in other actions like this growing out of the Sliger de-certification

28
1

1

stipulation have reached inconsistent results. Given that the decision to grant such stays is entirely

2

discretionary, this is unsurprising.

3

Although the question is close, in light of plaintiffs’ representations that there will be no

4

motion practice herein, the stay will be denied. Because all plaintiffs in the post-Sliger actions are

5

represented by the same counsel, and because individualized discovery will be required regardless

6

of the forum, the risk of duplicative or ultimately wasteful discovery is minimal. The parties also

7

have already engaged in their Rule 26(f) conference and the initial disclosure process. While a

8

scheduling order has not been entered, and will not be entered, delaying plaintiffs’ initial discovery

9

efforts would not be warranted. The initial Case Management Conference, however, will be
continued to January 9, 2014, at 10:00 a.m., with the expectation that a decision by the MDL panel

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

will issue prior to that date.

12
13

IT IS SO ORDERED.

14
15
16

Dated: 10/3/13
RICHARD SEEBORG
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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