Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_16-cv-01306/USCOURTS-cand-4_16-cv-01306-0/pdf.json

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

---

United States District Court

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SIERA STRUMLAUF, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

STARBUCKS CORPORATION,

Defendant.

Case No. 16-cv-01306-TEH 

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S 

MOTION TO CONTINUE CMC AND 

RELATED DEADLINES

Before the Court is Defendant Starbucks Corporation’s Motion to Continue the 

Initial Case Management Conference and Related Deadlines, pursuant to Civil Local Rule 

6-3. Docket No. 27. For the reasons set forth below, Defendant’s motion is hereby 

DENIED.

BACKGROUND 

 Plaintiffs filed this action on March 16, 2016. Docket No. 1. On April 11, 2016, 

Defendant filed a motion to dismiss, which was heard and is currently under submission. 

Docket Nos. 16, 26. On May 26, 2016, Defendant filed a notice informing the Court of 

three similar actions pending in other courts, and that it had filed a motion pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 4107, requesting that the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (“MDL 

Panel”) coordinate or consolidate and transfer the actions. Docket No. 24. The following 

day, Defendant filed a motion to stay this action pending the MDL Panel’s decision. The 

motion to stay is scheduled for a hearing on July 11, 2016. According to the parties, the 

MDL Panel will likley hear Defendant’s motion on July 28, 2016.

On June 9, 2016, Defendant moved to continue the Initial Case Management 

Conference (“Initial CMC”) and related discovery deadlines in this matter “to a date 

following the decision of the [MDL Panel] . . . on Starbucks’ Motion to Transfer this 

action.” Mot. at 1. Plaintiffs timely opposed the motion. Docket No. 29. 

Case 4:16-cv-01306-YGR Document 30 Filed 06/16/16 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

Northern District of California

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

DISCUSSION 

Defendant contends that absent a continuance, the Court “would have to spend time 

and judicial resources,” and Defendant would be burdened with “proceeding with 

discovery for which it seeks coordination.” Mot. at 1. Defendant further argues that it 

would be prejudiced absent a stay because it would face the “significant hardship” of 

“serial discovery planning conferences, initial disclosure statements, interrogatories, 

requests for production and depositions” in all four Districts in which the actions it seeks 

to coordinate are currently pending. Id. at 4. 

The Court has an inherent power to stay proceedings in order to “control the 

disposition of the causes on its docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for 

counsel and for litigants.” Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936). Defendant 

notes that courts frequently grant stays pending decisions regarding whether to transfer by 

the MDL Panel. Mot. at 3 (citing Good v. Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 5 F. Supp. 2d 804 

(N.D. Cal. 1998)). However, in addition to considering judicial economy, a court 

determining whether to stay proceedings also considers any prejudice to the non-moving 

party. See, e.g., Rivers v. Walt Disney Co., 980 F. Supp. 1358, 1362 (C.D. Cal. 1997) 

(granting moving party’s motion to stay pending MDL Panel decision because it would 

“serve the interests of judicial economy and because there is no evidence that it would 

prejudice [the non-moving party]”) (emphasis added). Plaintiffs note that the Court has 

already continued the Initial CMC, and therefore Plaintiffs have thus far been unable to 

commence discovery in their putative class action. Opp’n at 3.

The Manual for Complex Litigation (“MCL”) specifically cautions that where, as 

here, a motion for transfer under 28 U.S.C. § 1407 is pending, “[t]he transferor court 

should not automatically stay discovery; . . . Nor should the court automatically postpone 

rulings on pending motions, or generally suspend further proceedings.” MCL 4th § 

20.131; see also Rivers, 908 F. Supp at 1360. Thus, not all matters should necessarily 

await resolution of a motion to transfer by the MDL Panel. In fact, continued management 

of cases prior to transfer may ultimately benefit the transferee court, by resolving and 

Case 4:16-cv-01306-YGR Document 30 Filed 06/16/16 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

Northern District of California

3

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

narrowing issues that are unique to a particular action. MCL 4th § 20.131; see also Balero 

v. Lumber Liquidators, Inc., No. 15-CV-01359-JST, Docket No. 11 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 1, 

2015). 

Without addressing the merits of the pending motion to stay, the Court sees no 

reason to postpone the Initial CMC – and thus the commencement of discovery – merely 

because Defendant’s motion to transfer is pending. The Court’s resources expended in 

holding an Initial CMC are negligible, and the prejudice Plaintiffs would suffer by 

delaying the commencement of discovery for at least six weeks outweighs Defendant’s 

perceived burden. Finally, as Plaintiffs correctly noted, even if the MDL Panel grants 

Defendant’s motion to transfer, Defendant will still be required to “turn over the same 

documents and make available the same witnesses for deposition.” In re iPhone 

Application Litig., No. 10-CV-5878-LHK, 2011 WL 2149102, at *3 (N.D. Cal. May 31, 

2011). Thus, any prejudice suffered by Defendant is minimal. 

CONCLUSION

For the reasons discussed above, Defendant’s Motion to Continue the Initial Case 

Management Conference and Related Deadlines is hereby DENIED. All deadlines in this 

action shall remain in effect.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 06/16/16 _____________________________________ 

THELTON E. HENDERSON 

United States District Judge

Case 4:16-cv-01306-YGR Document 30 Filed 06/16/16 Page 3 of 3