Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00662/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00662-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 240
Nature of Suit: Torts to Land
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Torts to Land

---

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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CITY OF MERCED, ) 

 )

Plaintiff, )

 )

vs. )

 )

CHEVRON U.S.A., INC.; SHELL OIL )

COMPANY; EXXONMOBIL CORPORATION )

EXXON CORPORATION; KINDER )

MORGAN ENERGY PARTNERS L.P.; )

EQUILON ENTERPRISES LLC; SFPP, )

L.P. and DOES 1-20, inclusive, )

 )

Defendants. )

 )

 ) 

No. CV-F-05-0662 REC LJO

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’

MOTION FOR STAY PENDING

DETERMINATION BY PANEL ON

MULTI-DISTRICT LITIGATION,

DENYING DEFENDANTS’ EX PARTE

REQUEST, VACATING ORAL

ARGUMENT SET FOR JULY 25,

2005, AND STAYING FURTHER

PROCEEDINGS. 

Defendants move to stay the present action pending a

decision by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (“MDL

Panel”) on whether to transfer this case to the United States

District Court for the Southern District of New York in its

capacity as the MDL NO. 1258 court. Also pending are Plaintiff’s

motion to remand and Defendants’ ex parte application to continue

the hearing on Plaintiff’s motion. This matter is suitable for

determination without oral argument, see E.D. R. 78-230(h), and

argument previously set for Monday, July 25, 2005, at 1:30 p.m.

Case 1:05-cv-00662-LJO-LJO Document 28 Filed 07/12/05 Page 1 of 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

2

is hereby VACATED. 

Prior to this action being filed, the MDL No. 1358 court

issued an order requesting that all proceedings in potentially

transferable cases be stayed pending such transfer. Defendants

argue that this order suggests that this case should be stayed as

well and that denying the stay would waste judicial resources and

create a risk of conflicting pre-trial rulings in similar cases.

The Court is in receipt of a letter from the MDL Panel providing

notice of a conditional transfer order issued in this case and

remarking that a stay may be appropriate if a pending motion

raises questions likely to be common amongst cases that may be

consolidated. Plaintiff argues that its case is different from

those consolidated into MDL No. 1358 because Plaintiff does not

state a cause of action for products liability. There are,

however, causes of action within MDL No. 1358 that mirror those

in Plaintiff’s complaint - failure to warn, negligence and

nuisance. 

The power to stay proceedings in a case is a matter within

the Court’s discretion. Goode v. Prudential Ins. Co., 5 F. Supp.

2d 804, 806 (N.D. Cal. 1998). Stays are frequently granted when

a decision is pending before the MDL Panel. Id. at 809. Indeed,

“a majority of courts have concluded that it is often appropriate

to stay preliminary pretrial proceedings while a motion to

transfer and consolidate is pending with the MDL Panel because of

the judicial resources that are conserved.” Rivers v. Walt

Disney Co., 980 F. Supp. 1360, 1362 (C.D. Cal. 1997). 

Case 1:05-cv-00662-LJO-LJO Document 28 Filed 07/12/05 Page 2 of 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

3

Here, considerations of judicial economy and the potential

for conflicting decisions warrant a temporary stay of these

proceedings. Defendants’ motion for a temporary stay pending

transfer is hereby GRANTED. Plaintiff’s motion to remand is

deemed withdrawn without prejudice. The stay to be imposed

renders Defendants’ ex parte application moot, and therefore the

request is hereby DENIED. 

ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that this action shall be stayed

pending a determination by the MDL Panel regarding transfer and

consolidation. 

FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants are ordered to update the

Court in writing regarding the status of the consolidation. Such

update is due on or before September 30, 2005.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 11, 2005 /s/ Robert E. Coyle 

ia40ij UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00662-LJO-LJO Document 28 Filed 07/12/05 Page 3 of 3