Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_16-cv-01306/USCOURTS-cand-4_16-cv-01306-2/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 GRANTING IN PART AND 

DENYING IN PART MOTION TO 

STAY

This matter is before the Court on Defendant’s motion to stay all proceedings in this 

action pending a decision by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on whether to 

consolidate this action with other actions. Having carefully considered the parties’ written 

arguments, the Court finds this matter suitable for resolution without oral argument. See

Civ. L.R. 7-1(b). For the reasons stated below, the Court hereby GRANTS IN PART 

AND DENIES IN PART Defendant’s motion.

BACKGROUND 

The above-captioned matter concerns Plaintiffs’ putative class action against 

Defendant Starbucks Corporation, filed on March 16, 2016, which generally alleges that 

Starbucks uniformly underfills its lattes, and misrepresents to its customers the amount of 

latte that will be in its various sized cups. See Compl. (Docket No. 1). On May 26, 2016, 

Defendant moved the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (the “Panel”) to coordinate 

or consolidate this case with three others currently pending in federal court, and to transfer 

the cases to the Western District of Washington. Mot. at 2 (Docket No. 25). The Panel set 

the matter for oral argument on July 28, 2016. This matter has an Initial Case 

Management Conference (“CMC”) scheduled for July 11, 2016 before this Court. Prior to 

the CMC, the parties will have participated in the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f) 

conference and provided initial disclosures. 

Case 4:16-cv-01306-YGR Document 40 Filed 07/06/16 Page 1 of 4
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 

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.” MCL 4th § 20.131; see also Rivers v. Walt 

Disney Co., 980 F. Supp. 1358, 1360 (C.D. Cal. 1997). However, a district court has the 

inherent power to stay proceedings in order to control its docket, and in the interest of 

judicial efficiency. Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936). Thus, courts will 

“frequently grant stays pending a decision by [the Panel]” to serve the interests of judicial 

economy. Good v. Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 5 F. Supp. 2d 804, 809 (N.D. Cal. 1998). 

There are three factors for a court to consider when deciding whether to grant a stay 

pending the Panel’s decision: (1) potential prejudice to the non-moving party; (2) hardship 

and inequity to the moving party absent a stay; and (3) judicial resources that would be 

saved by avoiding duplicative litigation. Rivers, 980 F. Supp. at 1360. 

I. Plaintiffs’ Potential Prejudice is Minimal. 

The Court agrees with Plaintiffs that a stay will thwart Plaintiffs’ ability to 

commence and advance discovery. See Opp’n at 4. This would be unfair to Plaintiffs, as it 

would allow Defendant to unilaterally halt a proceeding rightfully initiated by Plaintiffs. 

There is no automatic stay pending a decision from the Panel; therefore, it is correct to 

assume that courts (and the Panel) anticipate that plaintiffs should generally be permitted 

to proceed with discovery while the Panel considers a pending motion to consolidate, 

unless other circumstances are present. 

However, the Court also agrees with Defendant that Plaintiffs have not specifically 

identified the reasons why a brief stay would be unduly prejudicial. Reply at 5-6. At this 

point, discovery has already commenced; thus, any prejudice resulting from a delay in the 

commencement of discovery would be minimal. See Order Denying Defendant’s Motion 

to Continue Initial CMC (Docket No. 30). For these reasons, the Court finds that this 

factor alone does not warrant denial of a stay. 

Case 4:16-cv-01306-YGR Document 40 Filed 07/06/16 Page 2 of 4
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

II. Defendant’s Perceived Hardship/Inequity is Minimal. 

There is a slight potential of hardship to Defendant insofar as it would be forced to 

engage in duplicative litigation absent a stay. See, e.g., Cooper v. Siddighi, No. 13-CV0345-JGB, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 188416, at *8 (C.D. Cal. May 8, 2013). However, 

considering the early stage of this litigation, the Court finds any such hardship to be 

minimal. The only duplication in the near future appears to be discovery-related, and with 

some foresight and organization, Defendant will not have to expend too many resources in 

turning over documents or responding to requests for admissions and interrogatories in the 

multiple actions. Accordingly, the Court finds that Defendant will not endure undue 

hardship absent a stay. 

The Court notes, however, that there is a higher potential for hardship to Defendant 

when it comes to duplicative depositions. The Court finds that it would be unduly 

prejudicial for Defendant to have to schedule and defend depositions of presumably the 

same Starbucks employees and other witnesses for four different cases during the 

pendency of the motion before the Panel. For this reason, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s 

motion as to depositions, but not as to written discovery. 

III. Few Judicial Resources Would Be Conserved by Granting a Stay. 

Courts generally stay proceedings when a stay would avoid the needless duplication 

of the Court’s resources and potential inconsistent rulings. See Rivers, 980 F. Supp. at 

1360-61. Here, the Court finds that the interests of judicial economy do not favor a stay. 

Without reaching the merits of the motion pending before the Panel,1the Court finds that 

while there may be similar questions of fact in the four cases, the Court does not see how a 

brief stay would conserve any meaningful amount of judicial resources. 

 

1

The Court does not take into account Plaintiffs’ arguments that the Panel will not 

coordinate the four cases due to the small number of cases or factual differences between 

the complaints. See Opp’n at 3. The merits of the Panel’s motion is not the proper focus 

of this Court. In re Rolls Royce Corp., 775 F.3d 671, 682 (5th Cir. 2014) (“Whether a case 

is to be transferred to an MDL docket is not [the district court’s] decision to make.”).

Case 4:16-cv-01306-YGR Document 40 Filed 07/06/16 Page 3 of 4
United States District Court

Northern District of California

4

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

The Court has already ruled on the motion to dismiss, and there are no other 

pending substantive motions that would create the possibility of inconsistent rulings. The 

Court does not foresee expending excessive resources in “pretrial management efforts”

while the Panel considers the pending motion to consolidate. Mot. at 5. Therefore, at this 

point in the proceeding, the Court finds that the interests of judicial economy do not 

warrant a stay. 

CONCLUSION 

 For the reasons explained above, the Court GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN 

PART Defendant’s motion to stay the proceedings, because Defendant has not met its 

burden of demonstrating that a stay is warranted. The parties shall attend the Initial Case 

Management Conference on Monday, July 11, 2016.2 Unless otherwise ordered by the 

Court and in accordance with applicable Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and this 

District’s Civil Local Rules, the parties may proceed with the following written discovery: 

requests for admissions, interrogatories, and requests for document production. 

However, Defendant’s motion is GRANTED as to depositions. Neither party may 

notice any depositions until the Panel has issued a ruling on Defendant’s motion to 

coordinate, unless otherwise ordered by this Court. The Court encourages the parties to 

cooperate during the pendency of the motion before the Panel to minimize any potential 

prejudice to either side. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 07/06/16 _____________________________________ 

THELTON E. HENDERSON 

United States District Judge

 

2

 Because the Court is no longer holding a hearing on this motion, the time and 

location of the July 11, 2016 CMC is hereby RESCHEDULED to 1:30 PM, in 

Courtroom 12 on the 19th Floor of the Phillip Burton Federal Building. 

Case 4:16-cv-01306-YGR Document 40 Filed 07/06/16 Page 4 of 4