United States District Court, N.D. California, San Francisco Division
JENNIFER KIRK, an individual, on her own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff,
TARGET CORPORATION, a Minnesota Corporation; and DOES 1-10, Defendants.
HAROLD J. MCELHINNY JACK W. LONDEN MICHAEL J. AGOGLIA REBEKAH KAUFMAN MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP San Francisco, California
DAVID F. MCDOWELL MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP Los Angeles, California Attorneys for Defendant TARGET CORPORATION
ROBERT AHDOOT AHDOOT & WOLFSON, APC Attorneys for Plaintiff JENNIFER KIRK
STIPULATION AND [ PROPOSED ] ORDER TO STAY ACTION PENDING JPML DECISION [N.D. CAL. CIVIL L.R. 7-12]
SAMUEL CONTI, Judge.
STIPULATION TO STAY
WHEREAS plaintiff Jennifer Kirk filed the complaint in the above-captioned action against Defendant Target Corporation ("Target") on December 19, 2013 ("Complaint");
WHEREAS Target has identified at least 80 actions asserting substantially similar allegations against Target pending in courts across the country;
WHEREAS there have been numerous petitions submitted to the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ("JPML") to consolidate these cases into a single multidistrict litigation ("MDL");
WHEREAS the parties expect that this action, along with the other similar actions, will be consolidated into an MDL, and that the JPML will also decide where the cases will be transferred as an MDL;
WHEREAS this action has only just commenced and there has been little activity in the case;
WHEREAS this Court has the inherent power to grant a stay, especially in circumstances such as here, where doing so would promote judicial economy and avoid prejudice to the parties, see, e.g., Landis North Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936); McVicar v. Goodman Global Inc., No. SACV 13-1223-DOC (RNBx), 2013 WL 6212149, at *2 (C.D. Cal., Nov. 25, 2013) (staying action pending JPML decision);
WHEREAS absent a stay, the Court and the parties would face case management obligations and deadlines and, in light of the likelihood that there will be an MDL consolidating these actions for the purpose of pretrial proceedings, a stay is necessary and prudent to avoid duplication of pretrial efforts by the parties, any waste of judicial resources, and the risk conflicting rulings;
WHEREAS the parties have met and conferred and agree that this action should be stayed pending a decision by the ...