IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

SHANNON TRAHAN, et al., )

 )

Plaintiffs, )

 )

v. ) CIVIL ACTION 10-0198-WS-B

 )

BP, PLC, et al., )

 )

Defendants. )

ORDER

This matter comes before the Court on defendants BP America, Inc. and BP Products

North America, Inc.’s Motion for Stay of Proceedings (doc. 12), as well as defendant Halliburton

Energy Services, Inc.’s Joinder in Motion for Stay (doc. 21).

On April 20, 2010, there was an explosion onboard the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig in

the Gulf of Mexico. A massive and heavily publicized oil spill ensued, with the potential to

jeopardize property, livelihoods, wildlife, and a vast array of other interests across the entire

Gulf Coast region. This case is one of dozens of putative class actions that have been filed in at

least seven federal district courts (as well as in state courts) throughout the southeastern United

States in recent weeks as a result of that oil spill. To date, no defendant has filed an answer or

Rule 12(b) motion in this action. Additionally, it appears that no discovery has commenced and

no Rule 26(f) conference has been conducted.

Several defendants have requested that this action be stayed in its entirety on the ground

that various parties have petitioned the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (the “MDL

Panel”) to transfer the burgeoning volume of related federal actions (including this one) to a

single district court for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

1407. The MDL Panel notified the undersigned that it has received a motion to transfer this case

in the proceeding styled In re Oil Spill by the Oil Rig “Deepwater Horizon” in the Gulf of

Mexico, on April 20, 2010, MDL No. 2179. The Court understands that the MDL Panel will

hear the pending transfer motions in MDL No. 2179 at its July 2010 hearing session in Boise,

Case 1:10-cv-00198-WS-B Document 32 Filed 05/25/10 Page 1 of 3
-2-

Idaho.

“The District Court has broad discretion to stay proceedings as an incident to its power to

control its own docket.” Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 706, 117 S.Ct. 1636, 137 L.Ed.2d 945

(1997); see also Dominguez v. Hartford Financial Services Group, Inc., 530 F. Supp.2d 902, 905

(S.D. Tex. 2008) (“The stay of a pending matter is ordinarily within the trial court’s wide

discretion to control the course of litigation ....”); Utah v. Eli Lilly and Co., 509 F. Supp.2d 1016,

1019 (D. Utah 2007) (recognizing discretion to stay proceedings to save time and effort for

parties and court). Indeed, “the 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. How this can best be done calls for the exercise of

judgment, which must weigh competing interests and maintain an even balance.” Landis v.

North American Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254-55, 57 S.Ct. 163, 81 L.Ed. 153 (1936). A critical point

is that “[a] stay pending transfer to MDL proceedings is not automatic.” Boudin v. ATM

Holdings, Inc., 2007 WL 1841066, *1 (S.D. Ala. June 27, 2007); see also Jozwiak v. Stryker

Corp., 2010 WL 147143, *2 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 11, 2010) (“a district judge should not automatically

stay discovery, postpone rulings on pending motions, or generally suspend further rulings upon a

parties’ motion to the MDL panel for transfer and consolidation”) (citations omitted); Toppins v.

3M Co., 2006 WL 12993, *1 (E.D. Mo. Jan. 3, 2006) (“A court need not automatically stay a

case merely because a party has moved the MDL for transfer and consolidation.”).

In this case, the Court finds that the Motion to Stay is premature. As noted, the MDL

Panel will take up the motions to transfer in MDL No. 2179, approximately 60 days from now. 

There is no reason why this action cannot move forward with preliminary steps in the interim. 

Regardless of whether and where the MDL Panel ultimately transfers this action for consolidated

and coordinated pretrial proceedings, defendants will need to file answers or responsive

pleadings. Should any of those defendants see fit to file Rule 12(b) motions, those motions will

need to be briefed. Entering a stay at this juncture and under these circumstances would not

rescue defendants from material hardship or the risk of inconsistent adjudications; after all, they

must answer the Complaint anyway, and the likelihood of adjudication of any merits issues prior

to late July (when the MDL Panel will hear the motions to transfer) appears quite slim, simply

because of the nascent status of this litigation. By all appearances, the only tangible effect of

Case 1:10-cv-00198-WS-B Document 32 Filed 05/25/10 Page 2 of 3
-3-

entering a stay at this time would be to allow defendants a three-month reprieve after service of

process before being required to answer the allegations brought by plaintiffs in the Complaint. 

Such a protracted delay appears both unnecessary and unwarranted. By contrast, it would

benefit both the parties and the transferee court (assuming there is one) to have a clear picture of

the issues joined and the defenses raised, with briefing of any threshold legal issues already

completed, at the time of any transfer order by the MDL Panel.

For all of the foregoing reasons, the Court in its discretion denies the Motion for Stay of

Proceedings Pending Transfer by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (doc. 12).

DONE and ORDERED this 25th day of May, 2010.

s/ WILLIAM H. STEELE 

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:10-cv-00198-WS-B Document 32 Filed 05/25/10 Page 3 of 3