Hernandez et al v. AFNI, Inc. et al

Filing 53

ORDER re Defendant Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC's 46 Motion to Stay Proceedings or in the Alternative to Stay Discovery. The Motion to Stay Proceedings Pending Final Decision on the MDL Transfer is Granted and the Motion is otherwise Denied as moot. In the event that the MDL panel denies the request to transfer the parties shall file a proposed discovery plan within 14 days of issuance of such order. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe on 6/24/2015. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SLD)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
10
11

LYNELLE HERNANDEZ, et al.,

12

Plaintiff(s),
vs.

13
ASNI, INC., et al.,
14
Defendant(s).
15

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 2:15-cv-00078-LDG-NJK
ORDER
(Docket No. 46)

16

Pending before the Court is Defendant Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC’s motion to stay

17

proceedings or, in the alternative, to stay discovery. Docket No. 46. Plaintiffs filed a response in

18

opposition and Defendant filed a reply. Docket Nos. 48, 50. The Court finds the motion properly

19

decided without oral argument. See Local Rule 78-2. For the reasons discussed below, the motion to

20

stay proceedings pending a final decision on the MDL transfer is hereby GRANTED and the motion

21

is otherwise DENIED as moot.

22

I.

BACKGROUND

23

This case involves allegations that Defendant violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and

24

Telephone Consumer Protection Act. On May 22, 2015, the United States Judicial Panel on

25

Multidistrict Litigation (“MDL”) issued a conditional transfer order that this case should be transferred

26

to the MDL pending in the Southern District of California. Docket No. 48-5. Plaintiffs have filed a

27

motion to vacate the conditional transfer order, and the MDL panel has scheduled a hearing on that

28

motion for July 30, 2015. See Docket No. 50-1 at ¶ 2.

1

STANDARDS AND ANALYSIS1

II.

2

MDLs are created to centralize litigation in order to eliminate duplicative discovery, prevent

3

inconsistent or repetitive rulings, and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel, and the

4

judiciary. Mangani v. Merck & Co., 2006 WL 2707459, *1 (D. Nev. Sept. 19, 2006). Whether to stay

5

proceedings is an issue left to the discretion of the court. See Landis v. N.A. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254-55

6

(1936); see also Lockyer v. Mirant Corp., 398 F.3d 1098, 1109 (9th Cir. 2005). In deciding whether to

7

stay proceedings pending resolution of a request to transfer to an MDL, courts generally consider three

8

factors: (1) potential prejudice to the non-movant; (2) hardship and inequity to the movant if the action

9

is not stayed; and (3) the judicial resources that would be saved by avoiding duplicative litigation if the

10

cases are in fact consolidated. Pate v. Dupey Orthopaedics, Inc., 2012 WL 3532780, *2 (D. Nev. Aug.

11

14, 2012) (quoting Rivers v. Walt Disney Co., 980 F. Supp. 1358, 1360 (C.D. Cal. 1997)). “Courts

12

frequently grant stays pending a decision by the MDL Panel regarding whether to transfer a case.” Good

13

v. Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 5 F. Supp. 2d 804, 809 (N.D. Cal. 1998). That is especially true when the

14

MDL has already issued a conditional transfer order, as any “delay is typically brief and a stay would

15

further the aim of judicial efficiency.” Noland v. Enterprise Holdings, Inc., 2010 WL 2555122, *1 (D.

16

Kan. June 22, 2010) (collecting cases).

17

The Court finds that these considerations militate in favor of staying proceedings pending

18

resolution of the MDL request to transfer. First, the potential prejudice to Plaintiffs is not significant

19

given that the MDL has already issued a conditional transfer order and the hearing on Plaintiffs’

20

opposition to that order is scheduled for about a month from now. See, e.g., F.I.M. v. U.S. Dept. of the

21

Interior, 2015 WL 2165274, *1, 2 (D. Nev. May 7, 2015) (finding prejudice from delay minimal in

22

similar circumstances). Second, the hardship and inequity to Defendant would be significant, as denying

23

its request to stay proceedings would result in duplicative litigation in multiple courts. See Pate, 2012

24
25
1

26
27
28

So long as resolution of a motion to stay is not effectively a resolution of the ultimate relief sought,
such a motion is considered non-dispositive pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). S.E.C. v. CMKM
Diamonds, Inc., 729 F.3d 1248, 1259-60 (9th Cir. 2013). In this instance, resolving the motion to stay is
not effectively a resolution of the ultimate relief sought, so the undersigned has the authority to decide the
motion.
2

1

WL 3532780, at *2 Third, the Court finds that resources would be saved by avoiding the above

2

duplicative litigation.

3

III.

CONCLUSION

4

For the reasons discussed above, the motion to stay proceedings pending a final decision on the

5

MDL transfer is hereby GRANTED and the motion is otherwise DENIED as moot. In the event that

6

the MDL panel denies the request to transfer, the parties shall file a proposed discovery plan within 14

7

days of issuance of such order.2

8

IT IS SO ORDERED.

9

DATED: June 24, 2015

10

______________________________________
NANCY J. KOPPE
United States Magistrate Judge

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2

This order is without prejudice to Defendant seeking a stay of discovery pending resolution of its
motion to dismiss.
3