Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Carlos Campbell, An Individual, On v. Euromarket Designs

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


June 3, 2011

CARLOS CAMPBELL, AN INDIVIDUAL, ON
BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, 16 PLAINTIFFS,
v.
EUROMARKET DESIGNS, INC. D/B/A CRATE & BARREL, AN ILLINOIS U.S.C. § 1407CORPORATION, DEFENDANT.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Jeffrey S. White United States District Judge Northern District of California

CLASS ACTION STIPULATION AND [Proposed] ORDER STAYING PROCEEDINGS PENDING DECISION ON DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO TRANSFER CASES PURSUANT TO FOR COORDINATED OR CONSOLIDATED PRETRIAL PROCEEDINGS

Complaint Filed: February 18, 2011

Complaint Served: Not Served Action Removed: March 22, 2011

WHEREAS, on March 22, 2011, Defendant Euromarket Designs, Inc. d/b/a Crate & Barrel ("Crate & Barrel") removed a Complaint filed against it by Plaintiff Carlos Campbell ("Plaintiff") to this Court in the above-captioned case, Campbell v. Crate & Barrel, Case No. 3:11-cv-01368-JSW (N.D. Cal.) ("Campbell");

WHEREAS, the following five related cases have also been filed against Crate & Barrel:

1. Dardarian v. Crate & Barrel, Case No. 3:11-cv-00945-JSW (N.D. Cal.) ("Dardarian")

2. O'Connor v. Crate & Barrel, Case No. 3:11-cv-02140-SC (N.D. Cal.) ("O'Connor")

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 personal identification information from customers who purchased goods using credit 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 identical factual issues relating to a single common defendant, Crate & Barrel;

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 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 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 to Transfer is pending would impose an undue burden on the parties and the Court if the 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, on June 1, 2011, the parties in Dardarian filed a substantially similar Stipulation and Proposed Order Staying Proceedings pending the JPML's decision 19 on Crate & Barrel's Motion to Transfer; 20 21

WHEREAS, on June 2, 2011, the parties in O'Connor filed a substantially similar Stipulation and Proposed Order Staying Proceedings pending the JPML's decision 23 on Crate & Barrel's Motion to Transfer;

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 27 prejudice, and the interests of judicial economy and efficiency. See, e.g., Clark v. Payless 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 4 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-8 01954, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7954 (E.D. Cal., Jan. 13, 2010) (same); Sanborn v. Asbestos Corp., Ltd., Case No. C 08-5260, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7528 (N.D. Cal., Jan. 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 17 preliminary pretrial proceedings while a motion to transfer and consolidate is pending with 18 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.

Dated: June 2, 2011 HARRISON PATTERSON & O'CONNOR LLP By JAMES R. PATTERSON MATTHEW J. O'CONNOR Attorneys for Plaintiff CARLOS CAMPBELL Dated: June 2, 2011 SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP By P. CRAIG CARDON DAVID R. GARCIA BRIAN R. BLACKMAN ELIZABETH S. BERMAN Attorneys for Defendant EUROMARKET DESIGNS, INC. d/b/a CRATE & BARREL

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.

20110603

© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.