Kumar v. Salov North America Corp et al

Filing 77

ORDER by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers denying 72 Defendant's Motion to Stay. The Court VACATES the hearing set for January 5, 2016 as well as the deadline for filing a reply brief. The temporary stay is DISSOLVED. (fs, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/14/2015)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5
6
7
8

ROHINI KUMAR, individually and on behalf of
the general public and those similarly situated,
Plaintiff,

9
10

Northern District of California

United States District Court

11

Case No.: 14-CV-2411- YGR
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S
MOTION TO STAY

vs.
SALOV NORTH AMERICA CORP.,

12

Defendants.

13
14

Defendant Salov North America Corporation (“Salov”) has filed a Motion to Stay the instant

15

action pending the Ninth Circuit’s resolution of three pending appeals: Jones v. ConAgra Foods,

16

Inc., No. 14-16327 (9th Cir. filed July 14, 2014), Brazil v. Dole Packaged Foods, No. 14-17480 (9th

17

Cir. filed Dec. 17, 2014), and Kosta v. Del Monte Foods, No. 15-16974 (9th. Cir. filed Oct. 2, 2015),

18

pursuant to the Court’s inherent powers. (Dkt. No. 72.)

19
20
21

Having carefully considered the papers submitted and the pleadings in this action, and for the
reasons set forth below, the Court hereby DENIES the Motion to Stay.1
“A district court has inherent power to control the disposition of the causes on its docket in a

22

manner which will promote economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants.”

23

CMAX, Inc. v. Hall, 300 F.2d 265, 268 (9th Cir. 1962). In considering whether to grant a stay, a

24

court should consider “the possible damage which may result from the granting of a stay, the

25

hardship or inequity which a party may suffer in being required to go forward, and the orderly course

26
27
28

1

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 78(b) and Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), the Court
finds this motion appropriate for decision without oral argument. Accordingly, the Court VACATES
the hearing set for January 5, 2016, as well as the deadline for filing a reply brief.

1

of justice measured in terms of the simplifying or complicating of issues, proof, and questions of law

2

which could be expected to result from a stay.” Id. (citing Landis v. N. Am. Co., 99 U.S. 248, 254-55

3

(1936)).

4

Here, the Court finds that the potential for prejudice and needless delay in granting a stay

5

pending decision of the other cases on appeal far outweighs any potential benefit in delaying

6

progress in the instant case. The Court cannot stay every case that might be affected by issues on

7

appeal in other litigation. The allegations here, and the proposed classes to be certified, differ

8

significantly from those in Jones, Brazil, and Kosta. Further, the parties have already invested

9

substantial resources in discovery to this point, which they carried out for months after the appeals

10

were filed.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Accordingly, the Motion for Stay is DENIED.

12

The temporary stay, previously ordered on November 16, 2015, is DISSOLVED.

13

Plaintiff shall file the class certification motion no later than January 19, 2016. Defendant’s

14

opposition shall be filed no later than February 23, 2016. Plaintiff’s reply shall be filed no later

15

than March 22, 2016. Hearing on the motion for class certification is SET for April 12, 2016, at

16

2:00 p.m. in Courtroom 1, Federal District Courthouse, 1301 Clay Street, Oakland.

17

This terminates Docket No. 72.

18

IT IS SO ORDERED.

19

Dated: December 15, 2015

20
21

_______________________________________
YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2