Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-02184/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-02184-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 195
Nature of Suit: Contract Product Liability
Cause of Action: 15:2301 Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act

---

Order staying all proceedings and deadlines 17cv2184

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

JUSTIN CHENEY and KEARY CHENEY,

Plaintiffs,

v.

FORD MOTOR COMPANY, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 3:17-cv-02184-GPC

Before the Hon. Gonzalo P. Curiel 

ORDER STAYING PROCEEDINGS 

AND DEADLINES PENDING 

DECISION BY JUDICIAL PANEL ON 

MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION

[DKT. NO. 13]

Before the Court is the ex parte motion of defendant Ford Motor Company 

for a stay of all proceedings and deadlines. Dkt. No. 13. Defendant seeks to stay 

the proceedings pending a decision by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation 

(“JPML”) on Ford’s Motion for transfer and pretrial consolidation in In re: Ford 

DPS6 PowerShift Transmission Litigation, MDL No. 2814.

The court’s power to stay proceedings is “incidental to the power inherent in 

every court 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. North American 

Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936). Courts frequently grant stays pending a decision 

by the MDL panel regarding whether to transfer a case. Good v. Prudential Ins. 

Co. of America, 5 F. Supp. 2d 804, 809 (N.D. Cal. 1998). 

Case 3:17-cv-02184-GPC-AGS Document 21 Filed 11/28/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
Order staying all proceedings and deadlines 17cv2184

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

When considering a motion to stay pending an MDL decision, the district 

court should consider three factors: (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 v. Walt Disney Co., 980 F. Supp. 1358, 

1360 (C.D. Cal. 1997). The Court finds that a stay would cause little prejudice to 

Plaintiffs as their primary argument regarding jurisdiction will continue to remain 

viable after the JPML has ruled on Ford’s motion to transfer. In comparison, 

Defendant Ford Motor Company would face considerable hardship as it faces more 

than 100 suits in federal courts across the state which could lead to the prospect of 

inconsistent rulings. Third, staying these cases would conserve judicial resources 

as a decision by the JPML to consolidate the cases—without a stay—would lead to 

this Court “needlessly expending its energies familiarizing itself with the 

intricacies of a case that would be heard by another judge.” Rivers, 980 F. Supp. at 

1360-61. Further, the Court observes that district courts across the state have 

stayed cases being considered for inclusion in this MDL.

1

 See Dkt. No. 17, Ex. G 

(S.D. Cal Stay Orders Nov. 16-17 by Judges Bencivengo and Whelan); Ex. H 

(C.D. Cal Stay Entries Nov. 13 by Judge Birotte); Ex. I (N.D. Cal. Stay Entries 

Nov. 16 by Judge Koh). 

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Ford’s motion to stay is GRANTED and 

all proceedings and deadlines in this action are stayed pending a determination by 

the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation of Ford’s Motion for transfer and 

pretrial consolidation in In re: Ford DPS6 PowerShift Transmission Litigation, 

MDL No. 2814. All filing deadlines and hearing dates are VACATED. The 

 

1 The instant case Cheney is not yet included on Ford’s schedule of related actions submitted to the JPML. See Dkt. 

13, Ex. C. However, in Case No. 17-cv-1993, Dkt. No. 20, pending before Judge Houston, Ford Motor Co. asserted 

that cases like Cheney which were “more recently removed” would be added to the schedule of cases for MDL 

2814. On November 15, 2017, this Court sua sponte referred three potential tag along cases (17-cv-1412, 17-cv1722, 17-1762) to the JMPL. Further, the Court takes this opportunity to alert the parties to take notice that Case 

No. 17-cv-2290, Perez v. Ford Motor Co., a case removed on November 9, 2017, has not yet appeared on any list of 

related actions or schedule of cases. 

Case 3:17-cv-02184-GPC-AGS Document 21 Filed 11/28/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
Order staying all proceedings and deadlines 17cv2184

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

parties are ORDERED to file a joint statement as to the status of Ford’s motion to 

the JPML on February 23, 2018. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 28, 2017

Case 3:17-cv-02184-GPC-AGS Document 21 Filed 11/28/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3