Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-00567/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-00567-9/pdf.json

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

---

– 1 – 17cv0567

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROSA ALVAREZ, individually and on behalf of herself and all others 

similarly situated,

 Plaintiff,

Case No. 17-cv-00567-BAS-BGS

ORDER GRANTING 

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO 

STAY

[ECF No. 126]

v.

NBTY, INC., et al.,

 Defendants.

Plaintiff Rosa Alvarez filed a complaint against Defendants NBTY, Inc. and 

Nature’s Bounty, Inc., alleging they violated California’s Unfair Competition Law 

and Consumers Legal Remedies Act through the false labeling of their products. 

Plaintiff moved for class certification. The Court denied Plaintiff’s motion for class 

certification (ECF No. 97) and soon afterwards, Plaintiff filed a petition with the 

Ninth Circuit for permission to appeal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(f). 

(ECF No. 101.) Plaintiff also filed a motion for reconsideration of this Court’s order, 

which the Court denied. (ECF No. 123.) Plaintiff now moves for the Court to stay 

this case until the Ninth Circuit rules on her Rule 23(f) petition. (“Mot.,” ECF No. 

126.) Defendant opposes the Motion to Stay, (“Opp’n,” ECF No. 130).

Case 3:17-cv-00567-BAS-BGS Document 131 Filed 02/18/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 5
– 2 – 17cv0567

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

The Court finds this Motion suitable for determination on the papers and 

without oral argument. Civ. L. R. 7.1(d)(1). For the reasons stated below, the Court 

GRANTS the Motion.

I. LEGAL STANDARD

Federal Rule of 23(f) provides a mechanism for interlocutory appeal of a 

court’s order granting or denying class certification. Such appeals do “not stay 

proceedings in the district court unless the district court or the court of appeals so 

orders.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(f). “A stay is not a matter of right, even if irreparable 

injury might otherwise result.” Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 433 (2009). The 

decision of whether to grant a stay is an “exercise of judicial discretion” and “the 

propriety of its issue is dependent upon the circumstances of the particular case.” Id.

A court balances four factors in determining how to exercise its discretion: (1) 

whether the movant is likely to succeed on the merits; (2) whether the movant is likely 

to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of a stay; (3) whether the issuance of the 

stay would not substantially harm the non-moving party; and (4) whether a stay will 

serve the public interest. Rainbow Bus. Sols. v. Merch. Servs., Inc., No. C 10-1993 

CW, 2014 WL 1783945, at *1 (N.D. Cal. May 5, 2014). The first two factors of the 

standard “are the most critical.” Id.

These four factors should be examined on a flexible “continuum,” which is 

“essentially the same as the ‘sliding scale’ approach” applied to requests for 

preliminary injunctions. Leiva–Perez v. Holder, 640 F.3d 962, 964–66 (9th Cir. 

2011). Under this approach, “the elements . . . are balanced, so that a stronger 

showing of one element may offset a weaker showing of another.” Id. at 964.

II. ANALYSIS

A. Likelihood of Success on the Merits / Serious Legal Questions

The first prong of the stay analysis requires the Court to determine whether 

Plaintiff has demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits. See id. at 966. On 

a motion to stay pending the resolution of a Rule 23(f) petition, the movant need not 

Case 3:17-cv-00567-BAS-BGS Document 131 Filed 02/18/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 5
– 3 – 17cv0567

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

demonstrate that it is more likely than not that it will win on the merits. Id. Instead 

“serious legal questions” raised in the petition can satisfy this first prong. Id. at 967–

68. When relying on “serious legal questions,” the movant must not only show that 

a serious legal question exists, but also that the hardship balance tips sharply towards 

the movant. Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 1132 (9th Cir.

2011); see Leiva–Perez, 640 F.3d at 966 (applying the “serious questions” approach 

to a stay).

Here, Plaintiff argues that her Rule 23(f) Petition raises serious legal questions, 

such as:

(1) whether it is manifest error for a district court to rule on the merits 

of a plaintiff’s claims at the class certification stage; (2) whether it is 

manifest error for a district court to deny certification based on an 

incorrect interpretation of a plaintiff’s damages model; and (3) whether 

a district court’s denial of class certification is a death knell to litigation 

where defendants are likely to make an offer of judgment and subject 

plaintiff to payment of their attorneys’ fees if she fails to recover more 

than what was offered and where denial of the Petition effectively 

requires a plaintiff’s counsel to work for free.

(Mot. at 3.) The Court disagrees that these are debatable legal questions. However, 

the Court does find the present case to be a unique one—where neither party disputes

the effectiveness of the nutrient (biotin) in the contested product, but the parties 

disagree as to the effectiveness of the contested product, and thus, the truth or falsity 

of the product’s label. This is a question that has not been directly addressed by the 

Ninth Circuit; it appears to be undecided as to how such an issue would fit into the 

predominance analysis under Rule 23. Accordingly, this case raises at least one 

serious legal question.

B. Irreparable Harm / Balance of Hardships

The second and third prongs of the stay analysis require the Court to consider, 

respectively, the likelihood of irreparable harm to Plaintiff if the Court denies a stay, 

and injury to other parties should the Court grant a stay. In cases such as this where 

Case 3:17-cv-00567-BAS-BGS Document 131 Filed 02/18/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 5
– 4 – 17cv0567

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

the movant relies on a “serious legal question” to satisfy the first prong of the stay 

analysis, the movant must show that the balance of harm tips sharply in its favor. 

Alliance for the Wild Rockies, 632 F.3d at 1132 (9th Cir .2011). Therefore, the Court 

will consider the second and third prongs together.

Plaintiff argues she will be irreparably harmed if a stay is not granted because 

she will be forced to expend substantial time and resources preparing for an 

individual trial. (Mot. at 3.) She argues that if she prevails on her individual claim

and the Rule 23 petition is granted, then the case will have to be tried again for the 

class claims. (Id. at 4.) She argues the parties should not have to prepare for an 

individual trial when an order on the Rule 23(f) petition will likely soon be issued. 

(Id.) 

The costs of pretrial litigation may amount to an irreparable harm when 

granting the stay would avoid substantial, unrecoverable, and wasteful discovery 

costs; when the costs would impose serious burdens that an appeal would avoid; or 

when pretrial litigation would moot an appeal. See Pena v. Taylor Farms Pac., Inc., 

No. 2:13-cv-01282-KJM-AC, 2015 WL 5103157, at *4 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 31, 2015) 

(citing cases). But costs may not amount to an irreparable harm, particularly where 

the costs would be inevitable regardless of the appeal’s outcome. Id.

Here, whether this case will proceed as an individual case or a class action will 

drastically affect the parties’ pretrial preparation. Of course, the outcome of the Rule 

23(f) petition will not provide guidance on the underlying issues in the case; if the 

Ninth Circuit grants the petition, it is merely agreeing to hear the appeal, not making 

any determination on the merits regarding class certification. Still, it seems 

unnecessary to try this case as an individual action now when the Ninth Circuit could 

later determine that the case should proceed as a class action. It is more efficient for 

both parties to know the Ninth Circuit’s decision before proceeding. Further, the 

Court finds no harm to Defendant in temporarily staying the case. Thus, the balance 

of hardships tips toward a stay in this action.

Case 3:17-cv-00567-BAS-BGS Document 131 Filed 02/18/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 5
– 5 – 17cv0567

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

C. Public Interest

“A stay in this case will help to ensure the ‘proper resolution of the important 

issues raised in this case’ by preventing potentially wasteful work on the part of the 

court and the parties” while the Ninth Circuit considers Plaintiff’s Rule 23(f) petition. 

Brown v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., No. 5:09-cv-3339-EJD, 2012 WL 5818300, at *5 

(N.D. Cal. Nov. 15, 2012). The Court therefore finds that the public interest weighs 

in favor of a stay.

III. CONCLUSION

The Court finds that this case should be temporarily stayed in the interests of 

justice. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion and STAYS this case 

in its entirety pending resolution of Plaintiff’s Rule 23(f) petition, and if the petition 

is granted, Plaintiff’s Ninth Circuit appeal. 

The pretrial deadlines and pretrial conference (March 9, 2020), motion in 

limine deadlines and hearing (April 27, 2020), and trial dates (May 5, 2020) are 

VACATED and may be re-set depending on the circuit court’s future ruling(s). 

The parties shall file a joint notice within one week of any disposition of the 

Rule 23(f) petition which informs the Court of the Ninth Circuit’s decision and how 

they each wish to proceed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: February 18, 2020

Case 3:17-cv-00567-BAS-BGS Document 131 Filed 02/18/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 5