Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-00184/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-00184-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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 10cv184 BTM (RBB)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DONALD SIPPLE, et al.,

Plaintiff,

Case No. 10cv184 BTM (RBB)

ORDER STAYING CASE

v.

AT&T, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

Defendants AT&T, Inc. and AT&T Mobility, LLC have moved to stay this case pending

a ruling by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (“JPML”) [Doc. 7]. The Motion is

unopposed. For the following reasons, the Court GRANTS the Motion.

A court has broad discretion to stay cases before it. Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681,

707 (1997) (citing Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936). In considering a motion

to stay pending proceedings before the JPML, a court should consider “(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, 980 F.Supp. at 1360.

Here, Plaintiff has not opposed the motion and the Court has no reason to find that

Plaintiff would be prejudiced. Furthermore, if the Court declines to stay this case,

Defendants will be forced to litigate in multiple forums and duplicate their efforts. Finally,

staying this case would promote judicial efficiency because it appears that there are several

related cases in other districts based on the same set of facts and claims. Assuming the

Case 3:10-cv-00184-BTM-RBB Document 14 Filed 04/12/10 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 10cv184 BTM (RBB)

JPML eventually consolidates these cases, entering a stay at this juncture minimizes the risk

of inconsistent rulings and permits a single district court to resolve issues pertaining to all the

related cases.

For these reasons, the Court GRANTS the Motion to Stay [Doc. 7] and STAYS this

case pending a decision from the JPML. If the JPML does not consolidate this case,

Defendants must respond to the Complaint within twenty-one days of the issuance of the

JPML’s decision.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: April 12, 2010

Honorable Barry Ted Moskowitz

United States District Judge

Case 3:10-cv-00184-BTM-RBB Document 14 Filed 04/12/10 Page 2 of 2