Miller, Susan v. CenturyLink, Inc. et al

Filing 21

ORDER granting in part 17 Motion to Stay Pending Ruling of the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation. The court will amend the deadline for defendants' answer to the amended complaint to one week after the Panel issues its decision on the motion (but no earlier than October 16, 2017). Signed by District Judge William M. Conley on 10/3/2017. (kwf)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
SUSAN MILLER, individually and as a
representative of a class of similarly situated
persons,
Plaintiff,

ORDER

v.
17-cv-648-wmc
CENTURYLINK, INC., CENTURYLINK
COMMUNICATIONS, LLC, CENTURYLINK
PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS, INC.,
CENTURYLINK SALES SOLUTIONS, INC.,
QWEST CORPORAITON and CENTURYTEL
OF WISCONSIN, LLC,
Defendants.
The court is in receipt of defendants’ motion to stay pending ruling of the judicial
panel on multidistrict litigation. (Dkt. #17.) In their brief, defendants explain that this
is one of thirteen other consumer fraud putative class actions pending in federal district
courts against CenturyLink and other related defendants. On July 31, 2017, CenturyLink
filed a motion to consolidate these actions in a multidistrict litigation. Defendants further
represent that the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation will hear this petition on
September 28 and typically rules on the petition within two week of the hearing. This case
was recently filed, with the answer not due until October 16, 2017, roughly corresponding
with the anticipated decision date by the Panel. As such, there really is little to stay.
In her response, plaintiff opposes the stay, but largely because she also opposes
transfer and consolidation. (Pl.’s Resp. (dkt. #19) 2.) Of course, this larger issue is not
before this court. Plaintiff also argues persuasively that there is little need for a stay here

given the answer deadline and the fact that the court has yet to hold a preliminary pretrial
conference.
While the court credits plaintiff’s arguments, defendants’ response to plaintiff’s
complaint here may be impacted by a decision granting the motion to transfer and
consolidate these actions in a multidistrict litigation. Moreover, the court is hard-pressed
to see how plaintiff would be prejudiced by a very short stay.
motion is GRANTED IN PART as follows:

Accordingly, defendants’

the court will amend the deadline for

defendants’ answer to the amended complaint to one week after the Panel issues its
decision on the motion (but no earlier than October 16, 2017). The preliminary pretrial
conference will not be set until after defendants answer or otherwise respond to the
amended complaint.
Entered this 3rd day of October, 2017.
BY THE COURT:
/s/
__________________________________
WILLIAM M. CONLEY
District Judge

2