COUSINS v. WALMART STORES INC et al

Filing 15

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION denying 9 Motion to Stay. By MAGISTRATE JUDGE JOHN C. NIVISON. (CWP)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MAINE
JAMIE COUSINS,
Plaintiff,
v.
WALMART STORES INC.,
Defendant

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

1:15-cv-00318-DBH

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION ON MOTION TO STAY1
In this action, Plaintiff asserts that Defendant violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act
when Defendant allegedly failed to extend Plaintiff’s employee health benefits to her same-sex
spouse in August 2013. The matter is before the Court on Defendant’s Motion for Temporary Stay
(ECF No. 9).
Through its motion, Defendant requests that the Court stay this proceeding pending the
resolution of a motion to dismiss that Defendant intends to file in a class action (not yet certified)
in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts,2 in which action the plaintiffs
similarly seek to impose liability on Defendant for not providing employee health benefits to samesex spouses before Defendant changed its policy in 2014. As explained below, after consideration
of the parties’ arguments, the Court denies the motion.

1

The motion to stay is not dispositive of any claims or defenses and does not seek injunctive relief. Accordingly, on
referral the matter is address by order rather than by recommended decision. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); Gulfstream
Aerospace Corp. v. Mayacamas Corp., 485 U.S. 271, 279 (1988) (“An order by a federal court that relates only to the
conduct or progress of litigation before that court ordinarily is not considered an injunction . . . .”); Gonzalez v. GE
Grp. Adm’rs, Inc., 321 F. Supp. 2d 165, 166 – 67 (D. Mass. 2004) (citing Third Millennium Tech., Inc. v. Bentley Sys.,
Inc., No. 03-1145-JTM, 2003 WL 22003097, at *1 – 2 (D. Kan. Aug. 21, 2003) (collecting cases related to magistrate
judge authority to issue an order staying proceedings).
2

Cote v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., No. 1:15-cv-12945-WGY (D. Mass.) (complaint filed July 14, 2015).

The Court may stay proceedings for “prudential reasons,” which can include the pendency
of parallel proceedings. Microfinancial, Inc. v. Premier Holidays Int'l, Inc., 385 F.3d 72, 77 (1st
Cir. 2004).3 Whether the existence of a parallel proceeding warrants the stay of a proceeding
requires consideration of various interests and is a case-specific inquiry. Id. at 78. The primary
considerations are: (1) the interests of the plaintiff in proceeding expeditiously with her case,
including the avoidance of any prejudice arising from delay; (2) the hardship to the defendant,
including the burden associated with defending multiple actions; and (3) judicial economy.4 Id.
(involving parallel civil and criminal litigation); Good v. Altria Grp., Inc., 624 F. Supp. 2d 132,
134 (D. Me. 2009) (involving a request for a stay pending resolution of a motion to transfer filed
before the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation).
In this case, Defendant requests a stay until it has filed and obtained a ruling on a dispositive
motion in the Massachusetts class action. According to Defendant, Plaintiff would not be
prejudiced because Defendant now makes employee health benefits available to Plaintiff’s spouse.
Defendant also maintains that judicial economy militates in favor of a stay because Plaintiff is a
putative class member in the Massachusetts action.
Defendants’ arguments are unpersuasive. As to the potential prejudice to Plaintiff if this
action is stayed, Plaintiff’s claim is not limited to a request for injunctive relief that requires
Defendant to maintain a policy that extends employee health benefits to the same-sex spouse of an
employee. Plaintiff also requests monetary damages as the result of the past denial of benefits.

To demonstrate “entitlement” to a stay the moving party must present “a clear case of hardship.” Microfinancial,
Inc., 385 F.3d at 77 (quoting Austin v. Unarco Indus., Inc., 705 F.2d 1, 5 (1st Cir. 1983)). Defendant does not suggest
that it is entitled to a stay.
3

4

The parallel proceeding issue often arises where a party seeks to stay a civil action while a related criminal matter is
pending. The interests of the public and specific third parties might be relevant, particularly when the parallel
proceeding is a criminal case. Microfinancial, Inc., 385 F.3d at 78. Neither party argues that the Court should consider
other interests, and the Court does not discern any other interests concerns that would materially alter the assessment
of the motion.
2

Contrary to Defendant’s argument, therefore, Plaintiff would be prejudiced if she were required to
wait an indefinite period of time to recover monetary damages in the event she could prove
liability. Plaintiff also represents, and the record lacks any information to suggest otherwise, that
Plaintiff will opt out of the class action case in the event a class is certified. The Court, therefore,
does not consider Plaintiff to be an actual party to both proceedings.
Defendant’s concern about the possibility of inconsistent court rulings on the legal issues
if this matter proceeded simultaneously with the Massachusetts action does not constitute
sufficient hardship to warrant a stay. The analysis and ruling of one district is not binding on
another district. Because Plaintiff does not intend to join the Massachusetts action even if the class
is certified, the possibility of inconsistent rulings between districts exists regardless of whether the
matter is stayed. Furthermore, because any decision of the District of Massachusetts would not
bind this Court, judicial economy would not be served by the stay of this action.
Based on the foregoing analysis, the Court denies Defendant’s Motion for Temporary Stay
(ECF No. 9).
CERTIFICATE
Any objections to this Order shall be filed in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 72.

/s/ John C. Nivison
U.S. Magistrate Judge
Dated this 14th day of September, 2015.

3