Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_03-cv-02659/USCOURTS-cand-3_03-cv-02659-8/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Employment Discrimination

---

United States District Court

For the 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

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DERRICK SATCHELL, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

FEDEX CORPORATION,

Defendant.

 /

No. C 03-02659 SI; C 03-2878 SI

Related Cases: No. C 04-0098 SI

 No. C 04-0099 SI

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S

MOTION FOR STAY PENDING

DISPOSITION OF RULE 23(F) MOTION

Defendant has filed a motion to stay proceedings pending the disposition of defendant’s Rule 23(f)

petition to the Ninth Circuit Court ofAppeals. Having considered the parties’ papers, the Court hereby enters

the following order.

The decisionwhether to stay proceedings is committed to the discretion of the Court. See Rohan ex

rel. Gates v. Woodford, 334 F.3d 803, 817 (9th Cir. 2003). FedEx contends that a stay is warranted

because, if this Court’s class certificationorder is reversed or modified on appeal, the parties will have wasted

time and effort devising the terms ofclass notice, distributing the class notice, and engaging in discovery. FedEx

also contends that if this Court’s certification order is reversed or modified, a second class notice would need

to be distributed, thus resulting in confusion to the class. 

The Court is not persuaded by FedEx’s arguments. The parties have already largely agreed on the

terms of the class notice, and at this stage plaintiffs bear the cost of distributing the class notice. With respect

to discovery and the pretrial schedule in this case, the Court finds that a stay would not be in the interest of

managing this litigation, which has been pending since 2003, particularly giventhe fact that the Ninth Circuit has

stated that Rule 23(f) review shall be a “rare occurrence.” Chamberlan v. Ford Motor Co., 402 F.3d 952,

955 (9th Cir. 2005). Similarly, given the limited circumstances under which the Ninth Circuit will accept a Rule

Case 3:03-cv-02659-SI Document 379 Filed 11/23/05 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the 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

2

23(f) petition, see id. at 959, the Court is not persuaded that there is a significant risk that issuing the class

notice now will lead to any confusion among the class.

Finally, plaintiffs contend thata staywill prejudice their ability to prosecute this case because witnesses’

memories are likely to fade, witnesses and class members are more likely to misplace supporting documents

with the passage of time, and delay will make it more difficult to locate class members who are no longer

current employees. Particularly in light of the fact that the class period extends back to October 1999, the

Court concludes that plaintiffs’ concerns about the effects of a stay are legitimate. 

Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, the Court hereby DENIES defendant’s motion for a stay.

[Docket No. 362].

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 18, 2005

 

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:03-cv-02659-SI Document 379 Filed 11/23/05 Page 2 of 2