Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-01904/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-01904-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 355
Nature of Suit: Motor Vehicle Product Liability
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Motor Vehicle Product Liability

---

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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Larry Palmer on behalf of himself and all

others similarly situated, et al.,

Plaintiffs, 

vs.

American Honda Motor Company, Inc.,

et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 07-1904-PHX-DGC

ORDER

Defendant Michelin North America, Inc. has filed a motion to stay this litigation

pending a decision by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation. Dkt. #24. Defendant

American Honda Motor Company, Inc. joins the motion. Dkt. #32. Plaintiffs oppose the

motion. Dkt. #29. 

The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation has scheduled oral argument for

January 30, 2008. Plaintiffs agree that this and similar actions should be consolidated by the

Panel, but argue that the cases should be transferred to the Northern District of Illinois, rather

than the District of Maryland as Michelin suggests. Dkt. #29 at 2 n.1. In addition, Plaintiffs

have stipulated with Defendants that Plaintiffs need not respond to Defendants’ pending

motion to dismiss until the stay issue has been resolved. Dkt. #35. 

The Court concludes that this matter should be stayed pending a decision on MDL

transfer. A stay will conserve judicial resources by avoiding duplicative litigation in the four

districts now considering similar actions. A stay will avoid hardship and inequity to the

Case 2:07-cv-01904-DGC Document 37 Filed 01/03/08 Page 1 of 2
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 -

moving party that could arise from inconsistent discovery rulings in the various districts.

Because the Panel will hear the motion for transfer at the end of this month, the Court

concludes that Plaintiffs will not suffer prejudice as a result of a stay of this action. For these

reasons, the Court concludes that a stay is appropriate. See Rivers v. Walt Disney Co., 980

F. Supp. 1358, 1360 (C.D. Cal. 1997).

IT IS ORDERED:

1. Defendant Michelin North America, Inc.’s motion to stay proceedings pending

a decision by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (Dkt. #24) and American Honda

Motor Company, Inc.’s joinder in the motion (Dkt. #32) are granted.

2. This matter shall be stayed until April 4, 2008. The parties shall file a status

report on that date concerning the MDL transfer motions.

DATED this 3rd day of January, 2008.

Case 2:07-cv-01904-DGC Document 37 Filed 01/03/08 Page 2 of 2