Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-02580/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-02580-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1391 Personal Injury

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARGARET A. GONZALES, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

GENERAL MOTORS

CORPORATION, et al.,

Defendants.

NO. C07-2580 TEH

ORDER GRANTING

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO

STAY PROCEEDINGS AND

VACATING DEFENDANTS’

MOTION TO DISMISS

This matter came before the Court on Monday, August 20, 2007, on Defendants’

motion to stay proceedings pending a determination by the Judicial Panel for Multidistrict

Litigation (“JPML”) on whether to consolidate this case with other actions pending in other

district courts. The JPML heard a motion to consolidate these cases on July 26, 2007.

A district court retains jurisdiction to rule on any pending motions while a motion to

transfer or consolidate proceedings is pending before the JPML. JPML Rule 1.5. However,

the court also has the inherent power to control its own docket, including the power to stay

proceedings in the interests of judicial economy, Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254-55

(1936), and Plaintiffs conceded at oral argument that this Court has the discretion to stay

these proceedings if it so desired. When considering whether to grant a motion to stay

pending possible transfer to a consolidated multidistrict litigation (“MDL”) proceeding,

district courts generally consider three factors: “(1) potential prejudice to the non-moving

party; (2) hardship and inequity to the moving party if the action is not stayed; and (3) the

judicial resources that would be saved by avoiding duplicative litigation if the cases are in

fact consolidated.” Rivers v. Walt Disney Co., 980 F. Supp. 1358, 1360 (C.D. Cal. 1997).

Following the parties’ oral arguments, the Court orally granted Defendants’ motion to

stay. As the Court explained, it finds that the judicial economy factor outweighs any

Case 3:07-cv-02580-TEH Document 34 Filed 08/20/07 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

prejudice Plaintiffs claim from a stay. The Court’s finding is underscored by the fact that,

unbeknownst to the Court and presumably the parties at the time of oral argument, the JPML

filed an order on August 17, 2007, transferring this action to the Eastern District of Michigan

for MDL proceedings. Thus, even if this Court were to have denied Defendants’ motion to

stay and reinstated the motion to dismiss, it would not have had time to adjudicate the motion

to dismiss prior to the transfer becoming effective.

Accordingly, with good cause appearing, Defendants’ motion to stay proceedings is

GRANTED. Defendants’ motion to dismiss is VACATED, without prejudice to Defendants’

re-raising their arguments for dismissal before the MDL court. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 08/20/07 

THELTON E. HENDERSON, JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case 3:07-cv-02580-TEH Document 34 Filed 08/20/07 Page 2 of 2