National Treasury Employees Union, et al v. Archuleta

Filing 29

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO STAY PENDING DECISION BY MDL PANEL by Hon. William H. Orrick granting 24 Motion to Stay. The parties shall advise the Court within three days of the MDL Panels ruling on defendants transfer motion. (jmdS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/20/2015)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

NATIONAL TREASURY EMPLOYEES
UNION, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

8
9
10
11

Case No. 15-cv-03144-WHO
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
STAY PENDING DECISION BY MDL
PANEL

v.
BETH F. COBERT, Acting Director, Office
of Personnel Management

Re: Dkt. No. 24

United States District Court
Northern District of California

Defendant.
12
13
Defendant Beth F. Cobert, Acting Director of the Office of Personnel Management, asks
14
for a temporary stay of these proceedings until the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
15
decides her motion to transfer this and other related actions for consolidated or coordinated pretrial
16
proceedings pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407. Dkt. No. 24. Plaintiffs oppose the motion. Dkt. No.
17
26. Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), I find this matter appropriate for resolution without oral
18
argument and I VACATE the hearing set for August 26, 2015. Because a temporary stay will
19
preserve judicial resources, likely avoid duplicative litigation, and not prejudice plaintiffs,
20

defendant’s motion for a stay is GRANTED.

21
Cases pending in different districts involving common questions of fact may be transferred
22
by the MDL Panel to another district for consolidated pretrial proceedings. See 28 U.S.C. §
23

1407(a). “In determining whether to stay proceedings pending a motion before the MDL Panel,

24
the factors to consider include: (1) conserving judicial resources and avoiding duplicative
25
litigation; (2) hardship and inequity to the moving party if the action is not stayed; and (3)
26
potential prejudice to the nonmoving party.” Douglas v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., 2013 WL
27
4013901, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 5, 2013).
28

1

A stay will conserve judicial resources and potentially avoid duplicative litigation. It will

2

be of relatively short duration: the MDL Panel has scheduled a hearing on the motion to transfer

3

for October 1, 2015. The stay will not prejudice plaintiffs, given how short it will be and what an

4

early stage of litigation the parties are in. See, e.g., Fuller v. Amerigas Propane, Inc., 09-cv-2616

5

TEH, 2009 WL 2390358, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 3, 2009) (stay would cause plaintiffs no real

6

prejudice where case was in early procedural stage and MDL Panel was expected to hear motion

7

to transfer within a few months). Plaintiffs’ pursuit of relief will not be materially affected. And

8

if plaintiffs are correct that defendant’s transfer motion is unlikely to be granted, this matter will

9

proceed shortly upon denial of the transfer motion.
CONCLUSION

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

For the reasons stated, defendant’s motion to stay is GRANTED. Dkt. No. 24. The parties

12

shall advise the Court within three days of the MDL Panel’s ruling on defendant’s transfer motion.

13
14
15
16

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: August 20, 2015
______________________________________
WILLIAM H. ORRICK
United States District Judge

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