Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-06346/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-06346-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Doordash, Inc.
Defendant
Janet Menifee
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JANET MENIFEE,

Plaintiff,

v.

DOORDASH, INC.,

Defendant.

Case No. 19-cv-06346-JSC 

ORDER RE: DEFENDANT’S 

ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO 

STAY PROCEEDINGS

Re: Dkt. No. 19

Janet Menifee sues her employer DoorDash, Inc. (“Defendant” or “DoorDash”) alleging 

various wage-and-hour violations under federal and state law. (Dkt. No. 17.)1 Now before the 

Court is Defendant’s administrative motion to stay this action pending final approval of a class 

settlement in Marciano v. DoorDash, Inc., No. CGC-18-567869 (S.F. Super. Ct.).2 (Dkt. No. 19.) 

Plaintiff opposes the motion. (Dkt. No. 21.) After careful consideration of the parties’ briefing, 

the Court DENIES Defendant’s motion for the reasons stated below. 

The plaintiff in Marciano filed its motion for preliminary approval of a class settlement on 

November 21, 2019. (Dkt. No. 19 at 2.) There is no dispute that the claims in Marciano overlap 

with the claims in this action. However, this is an individual action and Plaintiff has submitted a 

sworn declaration that she has “reviewed the proposed settlement and discussed it with [her] 

attorneys and do[es] not want to participate in it.” (Dkt. No. 21-1 at ¶ 5.) Further, Plaintiff attests 

that “[i]f the proposed settlement had been granted preliminary approval, [she] would opt out of 

it.” (Id.) Plaintiff attests that one of her “primary goals in this lawsuit is to obtain an injunction 

 

1 Record citations are to material in the Electronic Case File (“ECF”); pinpoint citations are to the 

ECF-generated page numbers at the top of the documents. 

2 Both parties have consented to magistrate jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). (Dkt. Nos. 

10 & 11.) 

Case 3:19-cv-06346-JSC Document 22 Filed 01/15/20 Page 1 of 2
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

requiring DoorDash to pay [her] properly as an employee in the future, [and] the settlement would 

not require DoorDash to do [that].” (Id. at ¶ 6.) Plaintiff’s opposition asserts that the only reason 

she “has not already opted out of the settlement is that the settlement has not yet been approved.” 

(Dkt. No. 21 at 3.) In other words, Plaintiff will opt out of the settlement if and when it is 

approved. Because Plaintiff will not participate in the class settlement, the outcome in Marciano

has no bearing on this case and Defendant will have to litigate this action regardless. 

Accordingly, the Court denies Defendant’s administrative motion to stay proceedings. 

This Order disposes of Docket No. 19. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 15, 2020

JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:19-cv-06346-JSC Document 22 Filed 01/15/20 Page 2 of 2