Opinion ID: 198767
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Y2K Act and the Motion for Stay

Text: The Y2K Act, which generally governs civil actions related to Y2K failure, establishes an initial cooling-off period designed to facilitate resolution of Y2K problems through voluntary efforts or alternative dispute resolution. In particular, the Act requires potential plaintiffs to file a pre-litigation notice. See 15 U.S.C. 6606(a). The potential defendant has thirty days to respond with a plan to remediate or to enter into alternative dispute resolution. See id. 6606(c). If the defendant fails to respond within thirty days, the plaintiff may file suit on the thirty-first day. See id. 6606(d). If the defendant does respond, an additional sixty days is allowed to resolve the problem. See id. 6606(e). Where, as here, the plaintiff fails to provide prelitigation notice, the defendant may treat the complaint as such notice by so informing the court. See id. 6606(f). If any defendant elects to treat the complaint as notice, the Act provides that the court shall stay all discovery and all other proceedings in the action for the appropriate period after filing of the complaint. Id. (emphasis added). PREPA concedes that the Y2K Act applies, but disputes Ericsson's contention that it was entitled to a stay. Ericsson continues to press for a stay, pointing out that it has been in litigation since this action started. PREPA, in turn, points out that a stay, under the statute, should be for an appropriate period, id. 6606(f), and that five months have passed since the complaint was filed. In response to questions from this court at oral argument, both parties conceded that the matter of a stay is better decided by the district court in the first instance. We agree. Accordingly, we vacate the district court's order of remand to the Commonwealth court and remand the case to the district court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. Costs are awarded to appellants.