Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-01850/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-01850-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 370
Nature of Suit: Other Fraud
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Fraud

---

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DUANE FOSDICK, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

SMITTY’S SUPPLY, INC.,

Defendants.

No. 2:19-cv-01850-MCE-EFB

ORDER

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 

Case 2:19-cv-01850-MCE-DMC Document 39 Filed 03/31/20 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

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

Case 2:19-cv-01850-MCE-DMC Document 39 Filed 03/31/20 Page 2 of 2