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)

Download PDF
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

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?