Ates v. Delta Air Lines, Inc. et al

Filing 12

ORDER granting 6 Motion to Stay; CASE ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSED. Signed by Judge Nannette Jolivette Brown. (jrc)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
ATES

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

CASE NO. 15-3228

DELTA AIR LINES, INC., et al.

SECTION: “G”(5)

ORDER
Before the Court is Defendants Southwest Airlines Co., Delta Air Lines, Inc., American
Airlines, Inc., and United Airlines, Inc.’s (collectively “Defendants”) “Motion to Stay Proceedings
Pending Ruling by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation.”1 The pending motion was filed
on September 14, 2015 and set for submission on September 30, 2015. Pursuant to Local Rule 7.5,
opposition to a motion must be filed eight days before the noticed submission date. Plaintiff Paula
A. Ates (“Ates”) has filed no opposition at this time, and therefore the motion is deemed to be
unopposed. This Court has authority to grant a motion as unopposed, although it is not required to
do so.2 Having considered the motion, the memorandum in support, the record, and the applicable
law, the Court will grant the motion.
I. Background
On August 4, 2015, Ates filed the instant putative antitrust class action against Defendants
seeking damages arising out of Defendants’ alleged conspiracy to restrict output and thereby

1

Rec. Doc. 6.

2

Edward H. Bohlin Co., Inc. v. Banning Co., Inc., 6 F.3d 350, 356 (5th Cir. 1993).

1

manipulate the prices of passenger airline tickets.3 The Complaint accuses the airlines of colluding
to limit seat capacity and illegally signaling to each other how quickly they would add new flights,
routes and extra seats in order to limit the capacity of passenger airline travel in the United States.4
The suit alleges violations of Section 1 of the Sherman Act5 and Sections 4 and 16 of the Clayton
Act.6
On September 14, 2015, Defendants filed the pending motion, asking the Court to extend its
time to respond to the Complaint and to stay proceedings pending final determination by the Judicial
Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (“JPML”) regarding whether this action may be consolidated with
more than 90 other related actions filed around the country.7
II. Parties’ Arguments
Defendants claim that, on June 30, 2015, the Department of Justice issued civil investigative
demands on Defendants requesting documents and other information relating to an investigation into
possible unlawful coordination to limit capacity on flights.8 Within hours, civil actions began to be
filed against Defendants.9 Defendants state that, on July 6, 2015, the plaintiffs in a pending, related
matter in the Northern District of Illinois filed a motion to transfer and consolidate all such actions

3

Rec. Doc. 1 at p. 1.

4

Id.

5

15 U.S.C. § 1.

6

15 U.S.C. §§ 15, 26.

7

Rec. Doc. 6.

8

Rec. Doc. 6-1 at p. 3.

9

Id.

2

in that court, which was followed by similar motions in many other related cases.10 According to
Defendants, on October 1, 2015, the JPML is set to hear motions seeking to centralize and transfer
all of the related cases to a single forum.11
Defendants request that this Court stay proceedings to await the decision by the JPML
regarding whether this action may be consolidated with others pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, in
order to avoid the potential for duplication, inconsistent rulings, and “wasting this Court’s time and
resources.”12 According to Defendants, this is the 67th of 97 substantially identical cases (called
“Capacity Actions”) filed against Defendants as of September 14, 2015.13 Defendants claim that all
parties agree that the cases should be centralized, and the only issue is where to transfer them.14
Noting that this Court has the power to control its own docket and stay proceedings,
Defendants request an extension of time to respond to the Complaint and to temporarily stay
proceedings until the JPML consolidates these cases and the transferee court sets a schedule for the
cases going forward.15 Defendants note that judges within the Eastern District of Louisiana
frequently defer to potential MDL consolidation by staying matters until the JPML has had an
opportunity to rule.16

10

Id. at p. 4.

11

Id. at p. 1.

12

Id.

13

Id.

14

Id.

15

Id. at p. 6 (citing Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936); United States v. 6.83 Acres of Land,
More or Less, Situated in Par. of St. Bernard, No. 08-999, 2013 WL 1403088, at *3 (E.D. La. Apr. 5, 2013)).
16

Id. at p. 7 (citing Rizk v. DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc., No. 11-2272, 2011 WL 4965498, at *2 (E.D. La. Oct.
19, 2011); Colvin v. DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc., 11-2222, 2011 WL 4965488, at *1 (E.D. La. Oct. 19, 2011); Rechert
v. Mark Starring & Assocs., Inc., No. 11-2171, 2011 WL 5078279, at *2 (E.D. La. Oct. 26, 2011)).

3

Defendants contend that in every earlier-filed case, plaintiffs agreed to suspend the schedule
pending the JPML’s centralization and transfer of the cases, and that in over 50 cases, the agreement
was set forth in a stipulation and order that was filed and approved in substantially the same form
in 11 jurisdictions across the country.17 Here, however, they assert that Ates has refused to consider
or agree to such a stipulation or stay and has insisted on a schedule that would require a response
to her complaint within ten days of the JPML hearing.18 Defendants argue that such a schedule is
unworkable and wasteful, however.19 Furthermore, although the JPML established a docket for the
related actions,20 Defendants claim that neither Ates nor any other party has submitted any papers
in the MDL proceeding seeking to centralize the Capacity Actions in this district.21
According to Defendants, this Court should consider three factors in weighing whether to
grant a motion to stay: 1) potential prejudice to the non-moving party; 2) hardship and inequity to
the moving party if the action is not stayed; and 3) the judicial resources that would be saved by
avoiding duplicative litigation if the cases are in fact consolidated.22 Defendants argue that all three
factors are met here.23 Defendants aver that Ates will not be prejudiced by a brief stay because no
activity in this case has occurred other than service of the Complaint.24 Defendants assert, however,
17

Id. at p. 2.

18

Id.

19

Id. at pp. 2–3.

20

In re: Domestic Airline Travel Antitrust Litig., MDL No. 2656 (J.P.M.L.).

21

Rec. Doc. 6-1 at p. 5.

22

Id. at p. 7 (citing La. Stadium & Exposition Dist. v. Fin. Guar. Ins. Co., No. 09-235, 2009 WL 926982, at
*1 (E.D. La. Apr. 2, 2009)).
23

Id. at p. 8.

24

Id.

4

that they will be substantially prejudiced if a stay is not granted and that the risk of inconsistent
rulings will be high.25 Defendants claim that once the Capacity Actions are consolidated, the
plaintiffs will likely file a consolidated amended complaint and that the Complaint in this instant
case will no longer be operative.26 A stay would therefore save Defendants the expense of answering
a complaint that is likely to be superseded, Defendants say.27 Defendants also argue in a footnote
that service on Southwest Airlines Co. (“Southwest”) was improper in this case, and that staying
proceedings will save this Court and Southwest from expending the resources to litigate the
sufficiency of service.28 Defendants aver that judicial resources spent on this case would be wasted
because they will have to be duplicated by the transferee court once the Capacity Actions have been
centralized and transferred.29
Finally, Defendants argue that denying the stay would impinge on the transferee court’s
ability to fully exercise its discretion when deciding how these cases will proceed.30 Defendants
point to the actions of other courts in this matter, who have largely delayed status conferences and
proceedings while awaiting a decision from the JPML, to suggest that this Court should follow suit.31
Ates has not filed an opposition to Defendants’ “Motion to Stay Proceedings Pending Ruling
by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation.”

25

Id.

26

Id. at pp. 1–2.

27

Id. at p. 2.

28

Id. at p. 8 n.4.

29

Id. at p. 8.

30

Id. at p. 9.

31

Id.

5

III. Law and Analysis
A.

Legal Standard
“[T]he 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.”32 A party requesting a stay must make out a clear case of hardship or inequity in
being required to go forward if there is even a fair possibility that the stay would harm another
party.33 Nonetheless, these considerations “are counsels of moderation rather than limitations upon
power.”34
The pendency of a motion to transfer before the JPML does not divest district courts of their
jurisdiction over a case.35 However, courts frequently grant stays in cases when an MDL decision
is pending.36 When reviewing a motion to stay pending a JPML decision, a district court considers
three factors: 1) potential prejudice to the non-moving party; 2) hardship and inequity to the moving
party if the action is not stayed; and 3) the judicial resources that would be saved by avoiding
duplicative litigation if the cases are in fact consolidated.37

32

Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936).

33

Id. at 255.

34

Id.

35

In re Air Crash Disaster at Paris, France, on Mar. 3, 1974, 376 F. Supp. 887, 888 (J.P.M.L. 1974)
(“[T]he mere pendency of a motion before the Panel does not affect or suspend orders and discovery proceedings in
the transferor district court and does not in any way limit the jurisdiction of the transferor court to rule upon matters
properly presented to it for decision.”).
36

See Cajun Offshore Charters, LLC v. BP Prods. N. Am., Inc., No. 10-1341, 2010 WL 2160292, at *2
(E.D. La. May 25, 2010) (collecting cases).

37
Id. at *1 (citing La. Stadium & Exposition Dist. v. Fin. Guar. Ins. Co., No. 09-235, 2009 WL 926982, at *
1 (E.D. La. Apr. 2, 2009)).

6

B.

Analysis
As noted above, when considering a motion to stay pending a decision by the JPML, a

district court must consider any potential prejudice to the non-moving party, hardship and inequity
to the moving party absent a stay, and judicial economy.38 For the reasons that follow, the Court
finds that all three factors in this case ultimately weigh in favor of staying proceedings pending a
decision by the JPML.
1.

Prejudice to the Non-Moving Party

Although Ates has allegedly refused to cooperate with Defendants to stay the proceedings
in this case, Plaintiff has filed no opposition to Defendants’ motion.39 Defendants are correct in
noting that there has been minimal activity in this case so far.40 Plaintiff filed the Complaint on
August 4, 2015,41 and the only motion currently pending before the Court is the instant motion to
stay. Defendant Southwest also seems posed to challenge service of process in this case if it
continues to advance before this Court.42 Furthermore, Defendants contend that the JPML is set to
hear motions seeking to centralize and transfer all of the related cases to a single forum in just one
day, on October 1, 2015.43 In light of the minimal activity in this case, the likelihood that it will soon
be consolidated with others, and the fact that Plaintiff has filed no Opposition to the pending motion,
the Court finds that this factor weighs in favor of staying the instant proceedings.

38

Id.

39

Rec. Doc. 6-1 at p. 3.

40

Id. at p. 8.

41

Rec. Doc. 1.

42

Rec Doc. 6-1 at p. 8 n.4.

43

Id. at p. 1.

7

2.

Hardship and Inequity to the Moving Party If a Stay Is Not Granted

Defendants argue that they will experience considerable hardship if a stay is not granted.44
They note that once the Capacity Actions are consolidated, the Complaint in the instant case will
no longer be operative, and thus a stay would save them the expense of answering a complaint that
is likely to be superseded.45 Defendants also aver that staying the case would save them the expensve
of litigating the service of process issue.46 According to Defendants, they are facing nearly 100
almost identical civil actions in district courts across the country, as well as an investigation by the
U.S. Department of Justice.47 The Court is convinced by Defendants’ argument that continuing to
litigate this case while waiting for a decision from the JPML that is likely to come in the near future
would prove a substantial hardship and inequity to Defendants. Therefore, this factor weighs in favor
of staying proceedings.
3.

Judicial Economy

Defendants aver that judicial resources spent on this case would be wasted because this case
is likely to be consolidated with the other Capacity Actions, and any efforts extended by this Court
will be duplicated in the transferee court.48 Defendants further claim that denying the stay would
impinge on the transferee court’s ability to fully exercise its discretion when deciding how these
cases will proceed.49 According to Defendants, parties in most of the other pending Capacity Actions

44

Id. at p. 8.

45

Id. at pp 1–2.

46

Id. at p. 8 n.4.

47

Id. at p. 1.

48

Id. at p. 8.

49

Id. at p. 9.

8

have agreed to stay their cases pending the JPML’s decision.50
“It is advisable . . . for a district court to defer the resolution of certain pretrial matters until
the Panel renders a decision with regard to whether a case should be transferred to the MDL court.”51
Furthermore, “[d]eference to the MDL court for resolution of these matters provides the opportunity
for the uniformity, consistency, and predictability in litigation that underlies the multidistrict
litigation system.”52 Given the number of substantially identical suits filed nationwide, the
immediacy of the JPML’s hearing on whether to consolidate the cases and where to transfer them,
and the risk of inconsistent outcomes if this Court does not grant a stay in these proceedings, the
Court finds that the interests of judicial economy would best be served by granting the motion to
stay. Therefore, this factor also weighs in favor of granting Defendants’ motion.
IV. Conclusion
For the reasons set forth above, the Court finds that each of the factors considered weighs
in favor of staying proceedings pending the JPML’s decision regarding the consolidation of the
Capacity Actions. Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Defendants’ “Motion to Stay Proceedings Pending Ruling by the
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation”53 is GRANTED,
IT

50

IS

FURTHER

ORDERED

that

this

matter

shall

be

STAYED

and

Id. at p. 2.

51

Scott v. Bayer Corp., 03-2888, 2004 WL 63978, at *1 (E.D. La. Jan. 12, 2004) (Fallon, J.) (citing
MANUAL FOR COMPLEX LITIGATION § 31.131, at 252 (3d ed. 2000)).
52

Id. (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1407); accord Rizk v. DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc., No. 11-2272, 2011 WL 4965498,
at *2 (E.D. La. Oct. 19, 2011) (Feldman, J.).

53

Rec. Doc. 6.

9

ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSED;
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants will not be required to answer, move, or
otherwise respond to the Complaint pending a decision regarding consolidation and transfer by the
JPML.
NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA, this _____ day of September, 2015.
30th
_________________________________________
NANNETTE JOLIVETTE BROWN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

10