Dodson et al v. Tempur-Sealy International, Inc. et al

Filing 289

ORDER GRANTING STAY by Judge Jon S. Tigar granting 286 Motion to Stay. (wsn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/18/2016)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

ALVIN TODD, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

8
v.

9

ORDER GRANTING STAY
Re: ECF No. 286

10

TEMPUR-SEALY INTERNATIONAL,
INC., et al.,

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

Case No.13-cv-04984-JST

Defendants.

12
On September 30, 2016, this Court entered an Order Denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Class

13
14

Certification, and on October 14, 2016, Plaintiffs filed a Rule 23(f) Petition (the “Petition”) with

15

the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals for permission to appeal this Court’s September 30, 2016

16

Order. On October 17, 2016, Plaintiffs moved to stay these proceedings pursuant to Federal Rule

17

of Civil Procedure 23(f). ECF No. 268. Defendants have not yet filed their response to Plaintiffs’

18

Petition but have consented, through counsel, to the Plaintiffs’ motion for a stay pending the Ninth

19

Circuit’s decision on Plaintiffs’ Petition, and in the event that the Petition is granted, have agreed

20

to a stay of proceedings in this Court pending the resolution of Plaintiffs’ appeal.

21

I.

22

LEGAL STANDARD
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(f), a party may petition the court of appeals for

23

permission to immediately appeal the denial of class certification. If the petition is granted, the

24

interlocutory appeal “does not stay proceedings in the district court unless the district court or the

25

court of appeals so orders.” Id. To prevail on a motion to stay, Plaintiffs must show that (1) it is

26

likely to succeed on the merits of the appeal; (2) it will be irreparably injured in the absence of a

27

stay; (3) issuance of a stay will not substantially injure Defendants; and (4) the stay is in the public

28

interest. Leiva-Perez v. Holder, 640 F.3d 962 (9th Cir. 2011). The Ninth Circuit has held that

1

these factors should be examined on a flexible “continuum,” which is “essentially the same as the

2

‘sliding scale’ approach” applied to requests for preliminary injunction. Id. at 964-66. Using this

3

approach, “the elements…are balanced, so that a stronger showing of one element may offset a

4

weaker showing of another.” Id. at 964. It is “clear,” however, that “to justify a stay, petitioners

5

needs not demonstrate that it is more likely than not that they will win on the merits.” Id. at 966.

6

Instead, “serious legal questions” raised in the petition can satisfy the first prong, id. at 967-68,

7

with the “critical element” in this analysis being the “relative hardships to the parties,” id. at 963.

8

II.

9

DISCUSSION
A.

“Serious Questions” Are Presented By The Rule 23(f) Petition

Plaintiffs have shown a sufficient likelihood of success on the merits to support the

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

issuance of a stay of these proceedings because Plaintiffs’ Petition raises “serious legal questions”

12

on appeal. Gray v. Golden Gate Nat’l Recreational Area, No. 08-CV-00722, 2011 WL 6934433 at

13

*3 (N.D. Cal., December 29, 2011). Leiva-Perez, 640 F.3d at 966.

14

B.

Plaintiffs Would Suffer Irreparable Harm Absent A Stay

15

The “critical element” in the stay analysis is the “relative hardships to the parties.” Id. at

16

963. This Court’s present Case Management Order presently contemplates further “for trial”

17

expert discovery, dispositive motions, and a trial on the merits of the Plaintiffs’ individual claims.

18

Given that the purchases at issue were of mattresses costing in the low thousands of dollars each,

19

the expert and expert discovery costs alone would likely dwarf any recovery. In short, both

20

Plaintiffs and Defendants would suffer “substantial harm if this action is not stayed pending

21

appeal and the Court is later reversed on the issue of class certification, resulting in substantial

22

time and resources being spent on this litigation, particularly expert discovery, dispositive motions

23

and trial preparation . . . .” Gray, 2011 WL 6934433 at *2.

24

Proceeding to a trial on the Plaintiffs’ individual claims prior to the Ninth Circuit’s review

25

of this Court’s Order Denying the Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification would also subject the

26

Plaintiffs and potentially, Class Members, to multiple trials. Plaintiffs contend that they face

27

utilization of the same experts and trials of the same complexity and length on their individual

28

claims, using the same evidence that Plaintiffs contend is common to each member of the
2

1

proposed putative class. It makes little sense for Plaintiffs to individually proceed to final

2

judgment on their claims that are cumulatively worth far less than the costs of litigation. Absent a

3

stay, further discovery, expert involvement, and a trial will result in substantial costs and expense

4

to both parties. Given that, and a risk of irreparable harm to all, balance of hardships tips in favor

5

of a stay of proceedings, given especially that the Defendants do not oppose the Plaintiffs’ Motion.

6

C.

7

Defendants have consented to the Plaintiffs’ Motion, and a stay would therefore result in

8
9

Defendants Would Suffer No Harm From A Stay

no material harm to the Defendants.
D.

The Public Interest Weighs In Favor Of A Stay.

Finally, a stay pending the Ninth Circuit action would serve important interests of sound

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

and fair judicial administration. A stay would avoid the parties and the Court wasting resources

12

on litigation that might be changed on appeal. Gray, 2011 WL 6934433 at *3 (“The public

13

interest lies in proper resolution of the important issues raised in this case, and issuance of stay

14

would avoid wasting resources on a class action litigation which might be changed in scope on

15

appeal.”).
CONCLUSION

16
17

Plaintiffs’ Motion to Stay Proceedings is granted. The Court, in its discretion, hereby stays

18

all further proceedings before this Court pending final resolution of the appellate proceedings

19

before the Ninth Circuit.

20
21
22
23

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 18, 2016
______________________________________
JON S. TIGAR
United States District Judge

24
25
26
27
28
3