Pulley et al v. JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A. et al

Filing 17

ORDER STAYING CASE pending decision for the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation; ORDER denying 16 Joint MOTION to Stay. Case is CLOSED for administrative purposes. Please see Order for additional details. Signed by Judge James I. Cohn on 7/10/2012. (awe)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Case No. 12-60936-CIV-COHN/SELTZER
PHILIP AND DEVRA PULLEY,
individually and on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,
v.
JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A. and
CHASE BANK USA, N.A.,
Defendants.
____________________________________/
ORDER STAYING ACTION
THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon the parties’ Joint Motion to Stay Action
Pending Outcome of Mediation [DE 16] (“Motion to Stay”) and the Courtesy Copy of
Plaintiffs’ Motion to Transfer for Coordinated or Consolidated Pre-Trial Proceedings
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407 [DE 15] (“Courtesy Copy of Motion to Transfer”). The
Court has considered the filings and the record in this case, and is otherwise fully
advised in the premises.
In the Motion to Stay, the parties indicate that they have begun mediating this
case, and request that the Court stay the action pending the outcome of their
mediation. The parties report that “[o]ther lender-placed insurance putative class
actions have been filed against Defendants and/or their affiliates in this District and in
other Districts throughout the country,” Mot. ¶ 5, and “meditation will involve counsel for
the parties in the other lender-placed insurance actions against Defendants and will
include discovery from Defendants,” id. ¶ 6. At this time, the Court finds it unnecessary

to stay this action while the parties mediate.
However, on June 14, 2012, a motion was filed with the Judicial Panel on MultiDistrict Litigation (“MDL panel”) to consolidate the pending lender-placed insurance
actions. Mot. ¶ 14 n.6; see also Courtesy Copy of Motion to Transfer. As the parties
note in their Motion to Stay, two of the other lender-placed insurance actions in the
Southern District of Florida have been stayed pending the outcome of the MDL panel’s
decision. See Knox v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., No. 12-cv-21702-CMA, at DE 17;
Yogev v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., No. 12-cv-21988-MGC, at DE 5. Further,
although a stay pending an MDL transfer motion is not automatic, such a stay “can
increase efficiency and consistency.” Manual for Complex Litigation § 22.35 (4th ed.
2004); see also Bonenfant v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., No. 07-60301-CIV, 2007 WL
2409980 (S.D. Fla. July 31, 2007) (“It is common practice for courts to stay an action
pending a transfer decision by the JPML.”). Therefore, in accordance with the Knox
and Yogev decisions, the undersigned will stay this action pending the outcome of the
MDL panel’s decision. Of course, the parties are free to continue their mediation while
this case is stayed and while the MDL panel considers the transfer of this action.
Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:
1.

The Joint Motion to Stay Action Pending Outcome of Mediation [DE 16] is
DENIED;

2.

However, the above-captioned action is STAYED pending an MDL panel
decision regarding the transfer of this action, or until further order of this
Court;
2

3.

Counsel shall immediately forward to this Court any orders from the MDL
panel pertaining to this action;

4.

The Clerk of the Court shall CLOSE this case for administrative purposes;

5.

The stay shall be lifted and the case shall be reopened upon motion of
either party at an appropriate time or upon the Court’s own motion.

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Fort Lauderdale, Broward County,
Florida, this 10th day of July, 2012.

Copies provided to:
Counsel of record via CM/ECF

3