Abdulhaqq et al v. Urban Outfitters

Filing 39

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS PENDING A DECISION ON TRANSFER BY THE JUDICIAL PANEL ON MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION 38 11 26 (Illston, Susan) (Filed on 9/17/2013)

1
2
3
4
5
6
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11

SHAKORA ABDULHAQQ; MERCY
CONNOR, individually and on behalf of all other
similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,

12
13

v.

14

Defendant.

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S
MOTION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS
PENDING A DECISION ON TRANSFER
BY THE JUDICIAL PANEL ON
MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION

URBAN OUTFITTERS, a business entity
unknown,

15

No. C 13-3184 SI

/

16
17

Defendant’s motion to stay and Plaintiffs’ motion to remand are scheduled for a hearing on

18

September 20, 2013. Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), the Court determines that these matters are

19

appropriate for resolution without oral argument, and VACATES the hearing. For the reasons set forth

20

below, the Court GRANTS defendant’s motion to stay all proceedings in this case pending a final

21

decision by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (“JPML”) on defendant’s motion to transfer.

22

In the event the Panel does not transfer this action, the Court will rule on plaintiffs’ motion for remand.

23
24

BACKGROUND

25

This is a wage and hour class action. Plaintiffs originally filed their complaint in the Superior

26

Court for the County of Alameda against Defendant Urban Outfitters. Plaintiffs alleges that they are

27

employees of defendant, and defendant engaged in a uniform policy and systematic scheme where

28

employees were misclassified as salaried “exempt” managerial employees when, in fact, they were

1

“non-exempt,” non-managerial employees under California law. Compl. ¶¶ 17-25. Plaintiffs alleges

2

that due to this scheme, defendant failed to provide plaintiffs with their proper wages, including

3

overtime wages, rest and meal periods, wage statements, and reimbursements for business-related

4

expenses. Id. ¶¶ 26-41. In the complaint, Plaintiffs bring seven causes of action for violations of the

5

California Labor Code and one cause of action for violation of California Business and Professions

6

Code § 17200, et seq. Id. ¶¶ 43-99. On July 10, 2013, defendant removed the action to this Court on

7

the basis of jurisdiction pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act (“CAFA”), 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d).

8

Docket No. 1, Notice of Removal.
On August 9, 2013, Urban Outfitters filed a motion before the JPML to transfer and coordinate

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

9

this action with four other actions1 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407. Docket No. 27-1, Orr Decl. Ex. A.

11

Presently before this Court are defendant Urban Outfitters’ motion to stay the action pending a decision

12

by the JPML on its motion for transfer, and plaintiffs’ motion to remand the action to state court.

13
14

DISCUSSION

15

The Court’s power to stay proceedings is “incidental to the power inherent in every court to

16

control the disposition of the causes on its docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel,

17

and for litigants.” Landis v. North American Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936). The Court finds that a stay

18

is in the interest of judicial economy and consistency because if this case is transferred by the JPML,

19

the MDL judge can address the jurisdictional issues in a uniform manner.2 See Meyers v. Bayer AG, 143

20

F. Supp. 2d 1044, 1049 (E.D. Wis. 2001) (“If the issues involved in the remand motion are likely to arise

21

in the cases that have been or will be transferred, judicial economy would be served by issuing the

22

stay.”); Couture v. Hoffman-LaRoche, Inc., No. 12-cv-2657-PJH, 2012 WL 3042994, at *2 (N.D. Cal.

23

July 25, 2012) (“[D]eference to the MDL court for resolution of a motion to remand often provides ‘the

24
25
26
27

1

These four actions are: Moore v. Urban Outfitters Wholesale, Inc., No. 13-cv-2245 (N.D. Cal.,
filed May 16, 2013); Berry v. Urban Outfitters Wholesale, Inc., No. 13-cv-2628 (N.D. Cal., filed Jun.
7, 2013); McEarchen v. Urban Outfitters, Inc., No. 13-cv-3569 (E.D.N.Y., filed Jun. 24, 2013); Ramirez
v. Urban Outfitters, Inc., No. 13-cv-1074 (M.D. Fla., filed July 17, 2013).
2

28

A similar motion to remand is also pending in the Moore action. See Moore, No. 13-cv-2245,
Docket No. 6.
2

opportunity for the uniformity, consistency, and predictability in litigation that underlies the MDL

2

system.’”) (citation omitted); see also Jones v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., No. 13-cv-2415, 2013 U.S.

3

Dist. LEXIS 94933, at *7 (N.D. Cal. July 8, 2013) (“Courts in this district . . . have granted motions

4

to stay in order to preserve judicial resources, even where jurisdictional questions and motions to

5

remand are at issue.”). The Court also finds that a stay will not prejudice plaintiffs because the stay will

6

only cause a slight delay in this action, which is still in the very early procedural stages. See Fuller v.

7

AmeriGas Propane, Inc., No. 09-cv-2616, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 71413, at *4-5 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 3,

8

2009) (“The Court observes no meaningful prejudice that a stay would cause to Plaintiff. Considering

9

that both cases for which MDL treatment is sought are in very early procedural stages and that the MDL

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

1

Panel is expected to hear this matter within a few months, any delay caused by this stay will be of very

11

short duration, and unlikely to cause the degradation of memories or the loss of material evidence.”).

12

Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS defendant’s motion to stay this

13

action, Docket No. 26, and DEFERS ruling on plaintiffs’ motion for remand. Docket No. 11.

14
15

IT IS SO ORDERED.

16
17

Dated: September 17, 2013
SUSAN ILLSTON
United States District Judge

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3