Case Information
*1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA DUANE FOSDICK, et al., No. 2:19-cv-01850-MCE-EFB Plaintiffs,
v. ORDER SMITTY’S SUPPLY, INC.,
Defendants.
By way of this action and a number of others initiated in other jurisdictions, Defendants Smitty’s Supply, Inc., and CAM2 International, L.L.C., are subject to claims brought by individuals challenging the labeling and quality of Defendants’ tractor hydraulic fluid. Defendants have now sought an order from the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (“JPML”) to have these cases consolidated and transferred to the Eastern District of Louisiana. In the meantime, Defendants also seek to stay this action until the JPML issues its decision.
This Court has previously addressed similar motions and denied stay requests under similar circumstances. See, e.g., Johnson v. Starbucks, Case No. 2:16-cv-02489- MCE-EFB, ECF No. 38. “According to Rule 2.1(d) of the Rules of Procedure of the JPML, ‘[t]he pendency of a motion . . . before the Panel . . . does not affect or suspend orders and pretrial proceedings in any pending federal district court action and does not
1
*2 limit the pretrial jurisdiction of that court.’” Id. (citations omitted). “In other words, a court
should not automatically issue a stay merely because a party has filed a motion for transfer with the MDL Panel.” Id. (citations omitted).
The Court thus agrees with the analysis set forth just a few days ago in the sister case of Zornes, et al., v. Smitty's Supply, Inc. et al., Case No. 19-cv-2257-JAR-TJJ (D. Kan. Mar. 18, 2020); see ECF No. 38-1. In that case the district court determined no stay was warranted because: (1) there is no indication how long this stay would last given that the JPML does not convene again until the end of May, and there is no way to predict whether this matter will be heard at that time in any event; (2) Defendants will suffer no hardship by proceeding with discovery here, especially since discovery will eventually need to proceed regardless of jurisdiction; and (3) Plaintiffs will suffer prejudice from an uncertain delay to the extent it precludes the parties from proceeding with discovery and moving the case forward. Id. at 2-5. Accordingly, Defendant’s Motion to Stay (ECF No. 32) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 30, 2020
2