Valorie Winn v. Mondelez International, Inc. et al

Filing 37

ORDER STAYING CASE. Signed by Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. on 7/17/2018. (ndrS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/17/2018)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
VALORIE WINN,

7

Plaintiff,

8

ORDER STAYING CASE

v.

9

Re: Dkt. Nos. 35, 36
MONDELEZ INTERNATIONAL, INC., et
al.,

10
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

Case No.17-cv-02524-HSG

Defendants.

12
On June 28, 2018, the Court denied Plaintiff Valorie Winn’s motion to remand. See Dkt.

13
14

No. 34 at 1. In that same order, the Court noted that Defendant Mondolēz International, Inc.’s

15

pending motion to dismiss cited to another case pending before this Court: Backus v. Biscomerica

16

Corp., No. 16-cv-3916-HSG. Dkt. No. 34 at 9. On June 22, 2017, the Court stayed the Backus

17

case pending decisions in Hawkins v. Kroger Co., No. 16-55532 (9th Cir.) and Hawkins v.

18

AdvancePierre Foods, Inc., No. 16-56697 (9th Cir.), finding that the latter cases “could

19

significantly narrow the issues in [the] case, conserve judicial resources, and avoid unnecessary

20

legal expense.” See No. 16-cv-3619-HSG, Dkt. No. 45.1 In light of the similar facts in Backus,

21

the Court ordered these parties to show cause why this case should not be stayed pending certain

22

decisions by the Ninth Circuit. Dkt. No. 34 at 9.
On July 13, 2018, the parties filed their responses to the Court’s order. Mondolēz

23
24

requested that the Court stay the case, as the Ninth Circuit’s “resolution of the Kroger,

25

AdvancePierre, and McGee actions will likely provide controlling authority in this case.” See Dkt.

26
27
28

1

The parties in Backus later identified another case pending in the Ninth Circuit that addresses
similar allegations: McGee v. Diamond Foods, Inc., No. 17-55577. See Backus, No. 16-cv-3619HSG, Dkt. No. 50.

1

No. 35 at 1. Plaintiff represented that she “agrees with and joins Defendant Mondolēz

2

International, Inc.’s OSC Response in full.” Dkt. No. 36 at 1. The Court therefore STAYS this

3

action in its entirety pending a decision in those actions by the Ninth Circuit. In the interim, if

4

either side seeks relief from the stay for any purpose, it should file a formal motion. The parties

5

are directed to submit a joint status report on the progress of the aforementioned appeals no later

6

than October 17, 2018.

7
8

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: 7/17/2018

9
10
HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.
United States District Judge

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2