Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-01639/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-01639-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 410
Nature of Suit: Antitrust
Cause of Action: 15:1 Antitrust Litigation

---

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

GEORGE LEPRE, on behalf of himself,

and all others similarly situated,

Plaintiffs,

Case No. 12cv1639 BTM(WVG)

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO

STAY CASE PENDING DECISION

OF THE JUDICIAL PANEL ON

MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION

v.

COX COMMUNICATIONS, INC., and

DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, 

Defendants.

Defendant has filed a motion to stay this case pending a decision by the Judicial

Panel for Multidistrict Litigation (“MDL Panel”) on Defendant’s motion to transfer this case

to MDL No. 2048 in the Western District of Oklahoma. For the reasons discussed below,

Defendant’s motion is GRANTED.

On July 18, 2012, Defendant filed a motion before the MDL Panel to transfer this case

to MDL No. 2048. According to the parties, the MDL Panel was expected to hear the motion,

without oral argument, on September 20, 2012. After Defendant filed the instant motion to

stay, Defendant filed a separate motion with the MDL Panel to consolidate this case and

three other regional class complaints into a new MDL proceeding in the Northern District of

Oklahoma. It does not appear that a hearing date has been set on this motion.

In determining whether to issue a stay of proceedings pending transfer proceedings

before the MDL Panel, courts generally consider three factors: (1) potential prejudice to the

1 12cv1639 BTM(WVG)

Case 3:12-cv-01639-GPC-WVG Document 29 Filed 09/28/12 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

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. Ortiz v. Menu Foods, Inc., 525 F. Supp. 2d 1220, 1232 (D.

Hawaii 2007); Rivers v. Walt Disney Co., 980 F. Supp. 1358, 1360 (C.D. Cal. 1997).

The Court finds that a stay of this case pending a transfer decision by the MDL Panel

would promote judicial economy and avoid the possibility of conflicting rulings. It appears

that a ruling on the motion to transfer to the Western District of Oklahoma is imminent. It

also appears that the motion to transfer to the Northern District of Oklahoma has been fully

briefed. Therefore, the issue of transfer should be resolved shortly, and Plaintiff will not

suffer any discernable prejudice from a stay pending the outcome of Defendant’s motions

to transfer. The Court makes no findings on the merits of Defendant’s motions to transfer.

The Court GRANTS Defendant’s motion to stay these proceedings pending a 

decision by the MDL Panel on Defendant’s pending motions to transfer. This case is

STAYED until further order of the Court.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: September 28, 2012

BARRY TED MOSKOWITZ, Chief Judge

United States District Court

2 12cv1639 BTM(WVG)

Case 3:12-cv-01639-GPC-WVG Document 29 Filed 09/28/12 Page 2 of 2