Covert et al v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al
Filing
26
ORDER DENYING 24 DEFENDANT SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC.'S ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION FOR A TEMPORARY STAY OF PROCEEDINGS. Signed by Judge Beth Labson Freeman on 2/22/2017.(blflc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/22/2017)
1
2
3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
4
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
5
SAN JOSE DIVISION
6
7
BRANDON COVERT, et al.,
Case No. 16-cv-06041-BLF
Plaintiffs,
8
v.
9
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA,
INC., et al.,
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
Defendants.
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA,
INC.’S ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION
FOR A TEMPORARY STAY OF
PROCEEDINGS
[Re: ECF 24]
12
13
14
Having reviewed the administrative motion for a temporary stay of proceedings filed by
15
Defendant Samsung Electronics America, Inc. (“SEA”), ECF 24, and the opposition thereto filed
16
by Plaintiffs, ECF 25, the Court DENIES the motion for the reasons discussed below.
17
Defendant SEA requests that the Court exercise its inherent power to stay the present case,
18
Covert, “temporarily” for some indeterminate period of time. The bases articulated for the
19
requested stay are that: (1) Defendant Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (“SEC”), a Korean
20
company, has not yet been served; (2) Plaintiffs will not permit Defendant SEA to examine the
21
smartphone at issue or conduct an independent medical evaluation of Plaintiffs until Defendant
22
SEC appears; and (3) a stay of Covert is appropriate because a related action, Martin v. Samsung
23
Electronics America, Inc., 16-cv-06391-BLF, has been stayed. Presumably, then, Defendant SEA
24
requests that Covert be stayed pending appearance by Defendant SEC and resolution of the
25
underlying MDL petition that gave rise to the stay in Martin.
26
As an initial matter, Plaintiffs correctly point out that an administrative motion for relief
27
under Civil Local Rule 7-11 is not an appropriate vehicle for Defendant SEA’s request for stay.
28
Civil Local Rule 7-11 is intended to provide a mechanism by which a party may present to the
1
Court “miscellaneous administrative matters, not otherwise governed by a federal statute, Federal
2
or local rule or standing order of the assigned judge.” Civ. L.R. 7-11. Examples “would include
3
matters such as motions to exceed otherwise applicable page limitations or motions to file
4
documents under seal.” Id. A motion to stay litigation is a substantive motion that properly
5
should be filed as a noticed motion under Civil Local Rule 7-2.
The Court did grant an administrative motion for a stay of litigation in Martin because the
7
motion was unopposed and little purpose would have been served by requiring that the motion be
8
re-filed as a noticed motion. See Order Granting Defendants’ Administrative Motion for a
9
Temporary Stay of Proceedings Pending Decision on MDL Petition, ECF 27 in Case No. 16-cv-
10
06391-BLF. Because that ruling may have misled Defendant SEA as to the propriety of bringing
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
6
the present motion for stay under Civil Local Rule 7-11, the Court will address the motion on the
12
merits.
13
“[T]he power to stay proceedings is incidental to the power inherent in every court to
14
control the disposition of the causes on its docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for
15
counsel, and for litigants.” Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936). In determining
16
whether to grant a stay, “the competing interests which will be affected by the granting or refusal
17
to grant a stay must be weighed.” CMAX, Inc. v. Hall, 300 F.2d 265, 268 (9th Cir. 1962).
18
“Among these competing interests are the possible damage which may result from the granting of
19
a stay, the hardship or inequity which a party may suffer in being required to go forward, and the
20
orderly course of justice measured in terms of the simplifying or complicating of issues, proof, and
21
questions of law which could be expected to result from a stay.” Id. (citing Landis, 299 U.S. at
22
254-55).
23
With respect to the first factor, possible damage if the stay is granted, Plaintiffs in Covert
24
have expressed a strong preference for going forward on their individual claims and avoiding
25
delays that would be caused by requiring their case to conform to the inevitably longer timetable
26
of the broader class action, Martin. Plaintiffs point out that Defendant SEA has brought the
27
present motion for stay on the eve of the Case Management Conference scheduled for February
28
23, 2017, that Plaintiffs already have made their initial disclosures, and that Defendant SEA did
2
1
not notify Plaintiffs at the parties’ recent meet and confer conference that Defendant SEA would
2
be seeking a stay. Plaintiffs assert that Defendant SEA’s conduct is particularly egregious because
3
Defendant SEA unsuccessfully sought to sweep Covert within the scope of Defendant SEA’s prior
4
administrative motion for stay in Martin and thus could have brought the present motion for stay
5
in a much timelier manner. Given all of these circumstances, the Court agrees with Plaintiffs that
6
imposition of a stay would be unfair and prejudicial to Plaintiffs, and thus that the first factor
7
weighs against a stay.
8
9
With respect to the second factor, hardship to Defendant SEA if required to go forward, the
only prejudice Defendant SEA articulates is its assertion that it will be “hamstrung” by Plaintiffs’
refusal to permit examination of the smartphone or an independent medical evaluation until
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
Defendant SEC appears. However, if Plaintiffs refuse to comply with discovery requests,
12
Defendant SEA may seek relief by appropriate motion before Magistrate Judge Howard Lloyd.
13
Accordingly, the second factor is neutral or weighs slightly against a stay.
14
Finally, with respect to the third factor, Defendant SEA asserts that staying Covert so that
15
it may be managed in conjunction with Martin will promote efficiency. While it did relate Covert
16
and Martin, this Court does not ordinarily manage related cases on the same timetable. At this
17
point in the litigation, the Court perceives no reason why Covert should be delayed so that it may
18
be managed with Martin. The Court therefore concludes that the third factor is neutral or weighs
19
slightly against a stay.
20
Accordingly, after consideration of the parties’ briefing on the merits and the Landis
21
factors, the Court in the exercise of its discretion DENIES Defendant SEA’s administrative
22
motion for a temporary stay. The Case Management Conference scheduled for February 23, 2017
23
at 11:00 a.m. remains on calendar. The Court’s ruling is without prejudice to a future motion to
24
coordinate Covert and Martin should developments in the cases make such a motion appropriate.
25
26
27
28
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: February 22, 2017
______________________________________
BETH LABSON FREEMAN
United States District Judge
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?