UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
June 2, 2011
NANCY DARDARIAN, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED,
EUROMARKET DESIGNS, INC. D/B/A CRATE & BARREL, AN ILLINOIS CORPORATION, DEFENDANT.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Jeffrey S. White United States District Judge Northern District of California
SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP A Limited Liability Partnership Including Professional Corporations P. CRAIG CARDON, Cal. Bar No. 168646 DAVID R. GARCIA, Cal. Bar No. 151349 ELIZABETH S. BERMAN, Cal. Bar No. 252377 BRIAN R. BLACKMAN, Cal. Bar No. 196996 Four Embarcadero Center, 17th Floor San Francisco, California 94111-4109 Telephone: 415-434-9100 Facsimile: 415-434-3947 email@example.com firstname.lastname@example.org email@example.com firstname.lastname@example.org Attorneys for Defendant EUROMARKET DESIGNS, INC. d/b/a CRATE & BARREL
STIPULATION AND [Proposed] ORDER STAYING PROCEEDINGS PENDING DECISION ON DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO TRANSFER CASES PURSUANT TO U.S.C. § 1407 FOR COORDINATED OR CONSOLIDATED PRETRIAL PROCEEDINGS
Complaint Filed: March 1, 2011
WHEREAS, on March 1, 2011, Plaintiff Nancy Dardarian ("Plaintiff") filed 2 her Complaint against Defendant Euromarket Designs, Inc. d/b/a Crate & Barrel ("Crate & 3 Barrel") in the above-captioned case, Dardarian v. Crate & Barrel, Case No. 3:11-cv-4 00945-JSW (N.D. Cal.) ("Dardarian");
WHEREAS, the following five related cases have also been filed against Crate & Barrel:
1. O'Connor v. Crate & Barrel, Case No. 3:11-cv-02140-SC (N.D. Cal.) ("O'Connor")
2. Campbell v. Crate & Barrel, Case No. 3:11-cv-01368-JSW (N.D. Cal.) ("Campbell")
3. Salmonson v. Crate & Barrel, Case No. 2:11-cv-02446-PSG -PLA (C.D. Cal.) ("Salmonson")
4. Heon v. Crate & Barrel, Case No. 3:11-cv-00769-JLS -BGS (S.D. Cal.) ("Heon")
5. Shughrou v. Crate & Barrel, Case No. 4:11-cv-02325-LB (N.D. Cal.) ("Shughrou");
WHEREAS, plaintiffs in all six of these actions purport to represent a class of California consumers and allege that Crate & Barrel unlawfully requested and recorded 26 personal identification information from customers who purchased goods using credit 27 cards at Crate & Barrel's retail establishments;
WHEREAS, plaintiffs in all six actions allege that this practice violates California Civil Code § 1747.08 (the "Song-Beverly Credit Card Act" or "Act");
WHEREAS, all six actions will require a court to resolve nearly
factual issues relating to a single common defendant, Crate &
WHEREAS, the parties agree that centralization of all six actions for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1407, because 9 they share common factual questions, and also because centralization would be convenient 10 and would promote the just and efficient conduct of pretrial proceedings;
WHEREAS, on May 11, 2011, before the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ("JPML"), Crate & Barrel filed a Motion to Transfer Heon, Dardarian, O'Connor, Campbell and Salmonson for coordinated or consolidated pretrial 15 proceedings pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407;
WHEREAS, on May 31, 2011, Crate & Barrel filed a Notice of Tag-Along Action before the JPML seeking to centralize Shughrou together with the actions already 19 encompassed by its Motion to Transfer;
WHEREAS, all six actions are likely to be centralized because they share common factual questions, and also because centralization would be convenient and would 23 promote the just and efficient conduct of pretrial proceedings. See, e.g., In re Payless Shoesource, Inc., California Song-Beverly Credit Card Act Litig., 609 F. Supp. 2d 1372 (J.P.M.L. 2009) (centralizing two putative class actions alleging identical violations of the Song-Beverly Credit Card Act).
WHEREAS, conducting pretrial proceedings while Crate & Barrel's Motion 2 to Transfer is pending would impose an undue burden on the parties and the Court if the 3 JPML ultimately grants Crate & Barrel's Motion to Transfer, because any pretrial 4 proceedings conducted now would likely be wasted or need to be repeated;
WHEREAS, neither party will suffer any prejudice, hardship or inequity if these proceedings are stayed pending the JPML's decision on Crate & Barrel's Motion to Transfer;
WHEREAS, the Court has the inherent power to stay all proceedings pending the JPML's decision on Crate & Barrel's Motion to Transfer;
WHEREAS, staying all proceedings pending the JPML's decision on Crate & Barrel's Motion to Transfer would serve the interests of judicial economy and 15 efficiency, for all the reasons discussed above;
WHEREAS, courts routinely stay all proceedings pending the JPML's determination of a motion to transfer based on the likelihood of transfer, the absence of 19 prejudice, and the interests of judicial economy and efficiency. See, e.g., Clark v. Payless Shoesource, Inc., Case No. 08-CV-08213 (C.D. Cal. Order filed Dec. 29, 2008) (entering 21 stipulated order staying all proceedings in a putative class action alleging violations of the Song-Beverly Credit Card Act); Oregon ex rel. Kroger v. Johnson & Johnson, Case No. 11-CV-86-AC, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 39187 (D. Or., Apr. 8, 2011) (granting motion to 24 stay pending JPML decision on motion to transfer); Barnes v. Equinox Group, Inc., Case No. C 10-03586, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 138863 (N.D. Cal., Dec. 30, 2010) (same); Cottle-Banks v. Cox Communications, Inc., Case No. 10-cv-2133, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 138195 (S.D. Cal., Dec. 30, 2010) (same); Gordillo v. Bank of Am., Case No. 1:09-cv-28 Asbestos Corp., Ltd., Case No. C 08-5260, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7528 (N.D. Cal., Jan. 2 27, 2009) (same); Lyman v. Asbestos Defendants (B*P), Case No. C 07-4240, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 78766 (N.D. Cal., Oct. 10, 2007) (same); Nielsen v. Merck and Co., Case No. C 07-00076, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21250 (N.D. Cal., Mar. 15, 2007) (same); Collum v. Astrazenca Pharm., L.P., Case No. C 06-0662, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 64861 (N.D. Cal., Aug. 29, 2006) (same); Rivers v. The Walt Disney Co., 980 F. Supp. 1358, 1362 (C.D. Cal. 1997) (granting motion to stay pending JPML decision on motion to transfer, holding: "[I]t appears that a majority of courts have concluded that it is often appropriate to stay 9 preliminary pretrial proceedings while a motion to transfer and consolidate is pending with 10 the MDL Panel because of the judicial resources that are conserved.");
NOW THEREFORE, it is stipulated by the undersigned counsel on behalf of the parties below, and subject to the Court's approval, that:
All proceedings in this action are stayed pending the JPML's decision on Crate & Barrel's Motion to Transfer Cases for Consolidated or Coordinated Pretrial Proceedings (MDL No. 2260).
IT IS SO STIPULATED.
PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.