Kirk v. Target Corporation

Filing 20

STIPULATION AND ORDER to Stay Action Pending JPML Decision. Motions terminated: 17 MOTION to Stay. Signed by Judge Samuel Conti on 03/03/2014. (tmi, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/3/2014)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12

HAROLD J. MCELHINNY (CA SBN 66781)
[e-mail]
JACK W. LONDEN (CA SBN 85776)
[e-mail]
MICHAEL J. AGOGLIA (CA SBN 154810)
[e-mail]
REBEKAH KAUFMAN (CA SBN 213222)
[e-mail]
MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
425 Market Street
San Francisco, California 94105-2482
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: 415.268.7522
DAVID F. MCDOWELL (CA SBN 125806)
[e-mail]
MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
707 Wilshire Boulevard
Los Angeles, California 90017-3543
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: 213.892.5454
Attorneys for Defendant
TARGET CORPORATION

13
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
14
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
15
SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
16
17
18

JENNIFER KIRK, an individual, on her own
behalf and on behalf of all others similarly
situated,

Case No.

3:13-cv-05885-SC

CLASS ACTION

19
Plaintiff,
20
v.

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED]
ORDER TO STAY ACTION
PENDING JPML DECISION

21
22
23
24

TARGET CORPORATION, a Minnesota
Corporation; and DOES 1-10,
Defendants.

[N.D. CAL. CIVIL L.R. 7-12]
Ctrm:
Judge:

1
Hon. Samuel Conti

Complaint Filed: Dec. 19, 2013
Trial Date: None Set

25
Initial CMC: March 21, 2014
26
27
28
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO STAY PENDING JPML DECISION
CASE NO. 13-CV-5885-SC

1

STIPULATION TO STAY

2

WHEREAS plaintiff Jennifer Kirk filed the complaint in the above-captioned action

3

against Defendant Target Corporation (“Target”) on December 19, 2013 (“Complaint”);
WHEREAS Target has identified at least 80 actions asserting substantially similar

4
5

allegations against Target pending in courts across the country;
WHEREAS there have been numerous petitions submitted to the Judicial Panel on

6
7

Multidistrict Litigation (“JPML”) to consolidate these cases into a single multidistrict litigation

8

(“MDL”);

9

WHEREAS the parties expect that this action, along with the other similar actions, will be

10

consolidated into an MDL, and that the JPML will also decide where the cases will be transferred

11

as an MDL;
WHEREAS this action has only just commenced and there has been little activity in the

12
13

case;

14

WHEREAS this Court has the inherent power to grant a stay, especially in circumstances

15

such as here, where doing so would promote judicial economy and avoid prejudice to the parties,

16

see, e.g., Landis v. North Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936); McVicar v. Goodman Global Inc.,

17

No. SACV 13–1223–DOC (RNBx), 2013 WL 6212149, at *2 (C.D. Cal., Nov. 25, 2013) (staying

18

action pending JPML decision);

19

WHEREAS absent a stay, the Court and the parties would face case management

20

obligations and deadlines and, in light of the likelihood that there will be an MDL consolidating

21

these actions for the purpose of pretrial proceedings, a stay is necessary and prudent to avoid

22

duplication of pretrial efforts by the parties, any waste of judicial resources, and the risk

23

conflicting rulings;
WHEREAS the parties have met and conferred and agree that this action should be stayed

24
25

pending a decision by the JPML regarding the MDL Number 2522;
NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereby stipulate and request that the Court enter an order

26
27
28

that:
1. This action is otherwise STAYED pending the decision of the JPML in In re Target
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO STAY PENDING JPML DECISION
CASE NO. 13-CV-5885-SC

1

1
2

Corp. Customer Data Security Breach Litig., MDL No. 2522;
2. Defendant’s Motion to Stay Proceedings Pending JPML Consideration or in the

3

Alternative Motion for Enlargement of Time to Respond to Complaint, (ECF No. 17), is

4

WITHDRAWN;

5
6
7

3. All deadlines, including defendant’s obligation to respond to the Complaint, are
VACATED until further order of the Court;
4. The parties shall notify the Court of the JPML’s decision within 10 days of the

8

decision if the Court is not otherwise notified.

9

Dated: February 26, 2014

MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP

10
11

By:

12

Attorneys for Defendant
TARGET CORPORATION

13
14

/s/ David F. McDowell
DAVID F. MCDOWELL

Dated: February 26, 2014

AHDOOT & WOLFSON, APC

15
16
17
18

By:

/s/ Robert Ahdoot
ROBERT AHDOOT
Attorneys for Plaintiff
JENNIFER KIRK

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO STAY PENDING JPML DECISION
CASE NO. 13-CV-5885-SC

2

1
2

ATTESTATION OF FILER
I, David F. McDowell, hereby attest that concurrence in the filing of this document has

3

been obtained from each of the other signatories. See Civ. L.R. 5-1(i)(3).

4

Dated: February 26, 2014

By:

/s/ David F. McDowell
David F. McDowell
MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP

5
6
7

ORDER
PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, AND GOOD CAUSE APPEARING, IT IS SO
ORDERED.

S
13

ER

H

16

RT

15

sf-3388382

NO

14

________________________________
Honorable Samuel Conti
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
nti
muel Co
udge Sa
J

R NIA

03/03/2014
Dated: __________________

FO

12

UNIT
ED

11

RT
U
O

10

S DISTRICT
TE
C
TA

LI

9

A

8

N

D IS T IC T
R

OF

C

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO STAY PENDING JPML DECISION
CASE NO. 13-CV-5885-SC

3