Opinion
2:23-cv-01217-JLR
10-04-2023
TRACEY LIU, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated Plaintiff, v. HOME DEPOT U.S.A., INC. Defendant.
Allexia Bowman Arnold, WSBA No. 54902 KING & SPALDING LLP Counsel for Defendant Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. Simon Franzini (pro hac vice) Christin K. Cho (pro hac vice forthcoming) Grace Bennett (pro hac vice forthcoming) DOVEL & LUNER LLP CARSON & NOEL, PLLC Counsel for Plaintiff Tracey Liu
Allexia Bowman Arnold, WSBA No. 54902 KING & SPALDING LLP Counsel for Defendant Home Depot U.S.A., Inc.
Simon Franzini (pro hac vice) Christin K. Cho (pro hac vice forthcoming) Grace Bennett (pro hac vice forthcoming) DOVEL & LUNER LLP CARSON & NOEL, PLLC Counsel for Plaintiff Tracey Liu
JOINT MOTION TO STAY PENDING MEDIATION OF RELATED CASE AND [PROPOSED] ORDER
HON. JAMES L. ROBART UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
JOINT MOTION
Plaintiff Tracey Liu (“Plaintiff”) and Defendant Home Depot, U.S.A., Inc. (“Home Depot”) hereby submit this joint motion to stay all case deadlines pending mediation and settlement discussions in the similar litigation styled Rudham v. Global Custom Commerce, Inc. et al., No. 3:23-cv-00152 (S.D. Cal.) (“Rudham Litigation”). In support of this motion, the parties state as follows:
1. Plaintiff filed her Complaint in this Court on August 9, 2023.
2. Home Depot's current deadline to respond to the Complaint is October 9, 2023.
3. The Rudham Litigation was filed on January 26, 2023, seeking to represent a class of individuals who made purchases from the websites Blinds.com, AmericanBlinds.com, and JustBlinds.com operated by Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. d/b/a Global Custom Commerce, Inc.
4. The allegations in the Rudham Litigation are substantially similar to those at issue in this litigation, and the plaintiff in the Rudham Litigation is also represented by Dovel & Luner LLP.
5. On September 25, 2023, the parties to the Rudham Litigation attended a mediation before Bruce Friedman of JAMS and made substantial progress toward reaching a potential resolution.
6. The parties intend to continue their settlement discussions in the Rudham Litigation and continue working with Mr. Friedman.
7. Class certification deadlines in the Rudham Litigation have been stayed pending these settlement discussions. See Dkt. 31, Rudham v. Global Custom Commerce, Inc. et al., No. 3:23-cv-00152 (S.D. Cal.).
8. The potential resolution of the Rudham Litigation is likely to have an impact on the instant litigation given the similarity of the claims and allegations in the two cases, and the parties respectfully submit that granting a brief stay of the instant litigation in order to allow them to focus on the potential resolution of the Rudham Litigation will conserve the resources of the parties and promote judicial efficiency.
9. This Court has inherent power to control the disposition of causes of action on its docket in a manner which will promote economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants. See Jinni Tech Ltd. v. RED.com, No. C17-0217JLR, 2018 WL 5312200, at *3 (W.D. Wash. Oct. 26, 2018) (quoting CMAX, Inc. v. Hall, 300 F.2d 265, 268 (9th Cir. 1962)).
10. As part of this inherent power, the Court has broad discretion to stay proceedings. Id. (quoting Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 706-07 (1997)).
11. A stay is appropriate where, as here, pending resolution of an independent proceeding bears upon the present case, even if the other proceeding does not control the outcome of the litigation. Id. (citing Leyva v. Certified Grocers of Cali, Ltd., 593 F.2d 857, 863-63 (9th Cir. 1979) (staying proceeding pending resolution of related California litigation).
12. In considering a stay, this Court weighs: (1) possible damage which may result from the granting of a stay; (2) the hardship or inequity which a party may suffer in being required to go forward; and (3) the orderly course of justice measured in terms of simplifying or complicating of issues, proof, questions of law which could be expected to result from a stay. Id.
13. Here, each factor weighs in favor of a stay. The parties agree that a stay pending additional settlement discussions in the Rudham Litigation is the most efficient path forward and will conserve the resources of the parties and the Court.
14. This is the first request for a stay in this action and will not affect any dates currently set by the Court, Local Rules, or Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, except Home Depot's deadline to respond to the Complaint.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff and Home Depot respectfully request that the case be stayed pending mediation and settlement discussions in the Rudham Litigation. The parties shall file a status report on or before November 8, 2023 (thirty days from Home Depot's current deadline to respond to the Complaint) informing the Court of the status of settlement discussions in the Rudham Litigation and the parties' progress regarding a potential resolution, or requesting the stay be lifted and a new deadline be set for Home Depot to respond to the Complaint.
[PROPOSED] ORDER
Upon consideration of the parties' Joint Motion to Stay Case Pending Mediation of Related Case (“Joint Motion”), and having found good cause, it is HEREBY ORDERED that the parties' Joint Motion is GRANTED. All pending case deadlines are hereby STAYED. The parties shall file a status report on or before November 8, 2023 informing the Court of the status of settlement discussions in the Rudham Litigation and the parties' progress regarding a potential resolution, or requesting the stay be lifted and a new deadline be set for Home Depot to respond to the Complaint.