Cheney et al v. Ford Motor Company et al

Filing 21

ORDER Granting #13 Motion to Stay Proceedings and Deadlines Pending Decision by Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation. The parties are ordered to file a joint statement as to the status of Fords motion to the JPML on February 23, 2018. Signed by Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel on 11/28/17. (dlg) (jao).

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

JUSTIN CHENEY and KEARY CHENEY,
Plaintiffs,

11
12
13
14

v.
FORD MOTOR COMPANY, et al.,
Defendants.

15

No. 3:17-cv-02184-GPC
Before the Hon. Gonzalo P. Curiel
ORDER STAYING PROCEEDINGS
AND DEADLINES PENDING
DECISION BY JUDICIAL PANEL ON
MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION
[DKT. NO. 13]

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

Before the Court is the ex parte motion of defendant Ford Motor Company
for a stay of all proceedings and deadlines. Dkt. No. 13. Defendant seeks to stay
the proceedings pending a decision by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
(“JPML”) on Ford’s Motion for transfer and pretrial consolidation in In re: Ford
DPS6 PowerShift Transmission Litigation, MDL No. 2814.
The court’s power to stay proceedings is “incidental to the power inherent in
every court to control the disposition of the causes on its docket with economy of
time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants.” Landis v. North American
Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936). Courts frequently grant stays pending a decision
by the MDL panel regarding whether to transfer a case. Good v. Prudential Ins.
Co. of America, 5 F. Supp. 2d 804, 809 (N.D. Cal. 1998).

28
Order staying all proceedings and deadlines

17cv2184

When considering a motion to stay pending an MDL decision, the district

1
2

court should consider three factors: (1) potential prejudice to the non-moving

3

party; (2) hardship and inequity to the moving party if the action is not stayed; and

4

(3) the judicial resources that would be saved by avoiding duplicative litigation if

5

the cases are in fact consolidated. Rivers v. Walt Disney Co., 980 F. Supp. 1358,

6

1360 (C.D. Cal. 1997). The Court finds that a stay would cause little prejudice to

7

Plaintiffs as their primary argument regarding jurisdiction will continue to remain

8

viable after the JPML has ruled on Ford’s motion to transfer. In comparison,

9

Defendant Ford Motor Company would face considerable hardship as it faces more

10

than 100 suits in federal courts across the state which could lead to the prospect of

11

inconsistent rulings. Third, staying these cases would conserve judicial resources

12

as a decision by the JPML to consolidate the cases—without a stay—would lead to

13

this Court “needlessly expending its energies familiarizing itself with the

14

intricacies of a case that would be heard by another judge.” Rivers, 980 F. Supp. at

15

1360-61. Further, the Court observes that district courts across the state have

16

stayed cases being considered for inclusion in this MDL.1 See Dkt. No. 17, Ex. G

17

(S.D. Cal Stay Orders Nov. 16-17 by Judges Bencivengo and Whelan); Ex. H

18

(C.D. Cal Stay Entries Nov. 13 by Judge Birotte); Ex. I (N.D. Cal. Stay Entries

19

Nov. 16 by Judge Koh).
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Ford’s motion to stay is GRANTED and

20
21

all proceedings and deadlines in this action are stayed pending a determination by

22

the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation of Ford’s Motion for transfer and

23

pretrial consolidation in In re: Ford DPS6 PowerShift Transmission Litigation,

24

MDL No. 2814. All filing deadlines and hearing dates are VACATED. The

25
26
27
28

The instant case Cheney is not yet included on Ford’s schedule of related actions submitted to the JPML. See Dkt.
13, Ex. C. However, in Case No. 17-cv-1993, Dkt. No. 20, pending before Judge Houston, Ford Motor Co. asserted
that cases like Cheney which were “more recently removed” would be added to the schedule of cases for MDL
2814. On November 15, 2017, this Court sua sponte referred three potential tag along cases (17-cv-1412, 17-cv1722, 17-1762) to the JMPL. Further, the Court takes this opportunity to alert the parties to take notice that Case
No. 17-cv-2290, Perez v. Ford Motor Co., a case removed on November 9, 2017, has not yet appeared on any list of
related actions or schedule of cases.
1

Order staying all proceedings and deadlines

17cv2184

1

parties are ORDERED to file a joint statement as to the status of Ford’s motion to

2

the JPML on February 23, 2018.

3

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: November 28, 2017

4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Order staying all proceedings and deadlines

17cv2184