Opinion
CIVIL ACTION NO.: 16-00738-BAJ-EWD
12-22-2016
JIMMY R. FAIRCLOTH, JR. v. VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA INC., ET AL.
RULING AND ORDER
Before the Court is Defendants' Joint Motion to Stay (Doc. 5). Defendants request that this case be stayed pending a decision to transfer the case to the Multidistrict Litigation ("MDL") case captioned In Re: Volkswagen "Clean Diesel" Marketing, Sales Practices, and Products Liability Litigation. (Doc. 5). Plaintiff has filed a response indicating that he has filed a motion with the MDL Panel to vacate the conditional transfer order, but does not oppose a stay on proceedings until the decision to transfer the case is finalized by the MDL Panel. (Doc. 11 at p. 2).
Plaintiff filed this action after experiencing problems with the electrical system in his Audi automobile. (Id.). Subsequently, a conditional transfer order was issued by the Clerk of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation. (Id. at 1). This could potentially lead to the consolidation of this case with over 1,000 other cases against Volkswagen. (Doc. 5 at p. 2). Plaintiff then filed an opposition to the transfer, asking that his claim be returned to this Court for adjudication. (Doc. 11 at pp. 1-2). The MDL Panel has yet to issue a decision. (See Id.). While this decision is pending, Defendants have filed a motion to stay the proceedings. (Doc. 5).
"[T]he 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. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254-55 (1936). Thus, district courts generally have broad discretion in deciding whether to implement a stay. See Hines v. D'Artois, 531 F.2d 726, 733 (5th Cir. 1976) ("An appeals court should reverse a district court's stay order only when the stay is 'immoderate.'"). Factors that courts in this circuit utilize to make this decision include: "(1) the potential prejudice to the non-moving party; (2) the hardship and inequity to the moving party if the action is not stayed; and (3) the judicial resources that would be saved by avoiding duplicative litigation if the cases are in fact consolidated." Louisiana ex rel. Caldwell v. Fresenius Med. Care Holdings, Inc., No. CIV.A. 14-490-SDD, 2014 WL 4441502, at *2 (M.D. La. Sept. 9, 2014) (quoting Rizk v. DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc., No. 11-2272, 2011 WL 4965498 at *2 (E.D. La. Oct. 19, 2011)).
The Court finds that a stay of proceeding is warranted until the MDL Panel makes a final decision on the transfer of the case. First, the record does not indicate that any prejudice would result to the non-moving party if a stay is implemented. In fact, the Plaintiff, the party most likely to point out prejudice to his side, even indicates that he is unopposed to the stay. (Doc. 11 at p. 2). Second, prejudice would result to the moving parties if the stay is not implemented, as they would be required to file responsive pleadings and waste resources on a case that may ultimately be decided by the results of the MDL. Finally, if this case is consolidated with the MDL, then this Court may be required to unnecessarily compromise judicial resources by adjudicating issues that may change upon the issuance of a decision by the MDL Panel. Thus, until the MDL Panel issues a ruling on the decision to transfer, a stay of proceedings is appropriate.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that the proceedings in the above captioned case are STAYED until a decision is rendered on the transfer of the above captioned case to the ongoing Multidistrict Litigation Court.
Baton Rouge, Louisiana, this 22nd day of December, 2016.
/s/ _________
BRIAN A. JACKSON, CHIEF JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA