Koller v. Med Foods, Inc. et al

Filing 87

ORDER by Judge Richard Seeborg denying 82 Motion to Lift Stay. (cl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/3/2016)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

SCOTT KOLLER,

Case No. 14-cv-02400-RS

United States District Court
Northern District of California

Plaintiff,
12
v.

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO LIFT
STAY

13
14

MED FOODS, INC., et al.,
Defendants.

15
16
17

In December of last year, this action was stayed pending decisions from the Ninth Circuit

18

in Jones v. ConAgra Foods, No. 14-16327, Brazil v. Dole Packaged Foods, LLC, No. 14-17480,

19

and Kosta v. Del Monte Foods, No. 15-16974. The stay order required plaintiff to file a notice

20

upon the issuance of a decision on the merits in any of those three appeals, and indicated the Court

21

would then lift the stay, continue it pending disposition of the remaining appeals, or solicit further

22

briefing.

23

Prior to a decision issuing in any of those cases, plaintiff filed a motion to lift the stay

24

arguing, (1) Brazil has been heard, and a decision is imminent; (2) a decision may soon issue in

25

Briseno v. ConAgra Foods, Inc., No. 15-55727 (9th Cir. filed May 13, 2015), which is a case

26

plaintiff contends is even more likely to provide the guidance contemplated by the stay order, and;

27

(3) circumstances exist suggesting both that decisions in Jones and Kosta may be substantially

28

delayed and that those cases may ultimately be decided on procedural grounds not instructive here,

1

and; (4) recent district court decisions on class certification motions demonstrate that waiting for

2

further appellate guidance is unnecessary. After plaintiff’s motion was filed, an unpublished

3

memorandum disposition has issued in Brazil. In essence, plaintiff’s motion requests the Court to

4

decide it will not await decisions in Jones and/or Kosta, and instead to rule now that the stay will

5

be lifted upon issuance of a decision in Briseno, with defendants’ opposition to class certification

6

to be due two weeks thereafter.

7

The motion is denied. Plaintiff may file notice when any decision in Briseno is filed. At
that juncture, an order lifting the stay, or continuing the stay, as may appear appropriate, will

9

issue. Any order lifting the stay will address the issues of whether plaintiff should supplement the

10

class certification briefing and how much time defendants should be allowed for filing opposition.

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

8

The parties’ views on those issues will be solicited at that point in time, if necessary. Defendants

12

are advised that while it is unlikely that they will be ordered to file opposition in as little as two

13

weeks, a time period substantially longer than that will not be allowed unless further briefing in

14

support of the motion is requested from plaintiff.

15
16

IT IS SO ORDERED.

17
18
19
20

Dated: November 3, 2016
______________________________________
RICHARD SEEBORG
United States District Judge

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

CASE NO.

2

14-cv-02400-RS