Opinion
21-CV-806-GPC-BLM
11-04-2021
MARK EDWARD VENNERHOLM II & REANNA ANN VENNERHOLM, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals, Plaintiffs, v. GEICO CASUALTY COMPANY, GEICO INDEMNITY COMPANY, GEICO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, AND GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendants.
ORDER:
(1) DENYING AS MOOT DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS PENDING JPML CONSIDERATION AND VACATING THE NOVEMBER 12, 2021 HEARING [ECF NO. 24]
(2) GRANTING IN PART DEFENDANTS' EX PARTE APPLICATION TO EXTEND TIME TO RESPOND TO PLAINTIFFS' AMENDED COMPLAINT [ECF NO. 36]
HON. GONZALO P. CURIEL UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Before the Court is Defendants' Motion to Stay Proceedings Pending JPML Consideration filed on June 30, 2021. ECF No. 24. Plaintiffs opposed the motion, ECF No. 29, and Defendants replied in support of the motion, ECF No. 30. The hearing is currently set for November 12, 2021. Also before the Court is Defendants' Ex Parte Application to Extend Time to Respond to Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint filed on October 29, 2021. ECF No. 36. Plaintiffs filed a response in opposition to Defendants' ex parte application on November 3, 2021. ECF No. 38.
For the following reasons, the Court hereby DENIES AS MOOT Defendants' Motion to Stay and VACATES the November 12, 2021 hearing thereon. Further, GOOD CAUSE appearing, the Court GRANTS Defendants' ex parte application for an extension of time, and ORDERS that Defendants respond to Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint on or before December 3, 2021.
I. Defendants' Motion to Stay
Defendants' Motion to Stay sought to pause this litigation until the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (“JPML”) reached a decision about whether the pretrial proceedings in the five separate cases brought against Defendants (including the one Plaintiffs brought against Defendants in this district) should be consolidated in one district for consolidated pretrial proceedings pursuant to section 1407. ECF No. 24. On October 15, 2021, Plaintiffs filed a notice informing the Court that the JPML denied Defendants' motion under section 1407 to consolidate the five lawsuits against Defendants in the Eastern District of New York or the District of Maryland. ECF No. 33. The JPML Order stated the panel's conclusion that “centralization is not necessary for the convenience of the parties and witnesses or to further the just and efficient conduct of this litigation.” ECF No. 35 at 1.
Because the JPML has now reached its decision, and rejected Defendants' request, the Court finds that Defendants' Motion to Stay is now moot. Accordingly, the Court DENIES as moot the motion to stay, and VACATES the hearing on that motion.
II. Defendants' Ex Parte Application for an Extension of Time
On the same day that Plaintiffs filed their notice informing the Court of the JPML's decision, Plaintiffs also filed their Amended Class Action Complaint. ECF No. 35. Defendants have now asked the Court for additional time to answer or respond to Plaintiffs' Complaint, which includes new causes of action and a new defendant which requires Defendants to further investigate the allegations in the complaint. ECF No. 36 at 2, 3. Accordingly, the Court finds it reasonable to extend Defendants' time to respond to the amended complaint beyond the October 29, 2021 deadline.
Having read and considered Defendants' ex parte application and Plaintiffs' opposition, and GOOD CAUSE appearing, the Court hereby GRANTS IN PART Defendants' Ex Parte Application (ECF No. 36) and ORDERS that Defendants' time to file a responsive pleading to the Amended Complaint be extended to November 22, 2021.
IT IS SO ORDERED.