Opinion
2:23-cv-142-JCC
03-03-2023
TAMARA FERGUSON and BRIAN HEINZ, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. T-MOBILE USA, INC., Defendant.
Kim D. Stephens, P.S., WSBA No. 11984 Jason T. Dennett, WSBA No. 30686 Kaleigh N. Boyd, WSBA No. 52684 TOUSLEY BRAIN STEPHENS PLLC Attorneys for Plaintiffs Lauren J. Tsuji, WSBA No. 55839 PERKINS COIE LLP Donald Houser (Pro Hac Vice) ALSTON & BIRD LLP Attorneys for Defendant T-Mobile USA, Inc.
NOTE ON MOTION CALENDAR: March 2, 2023
Kim D. Stephens, P.S., WSBA No. 11984 Jason T. Dennett, WSBA No. 30686 Kaleigh N. Boyd, WSBA No. 52684 TOUSLEY BRAIN STEPHENS PLLC Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Lauren J. Tsuji, WSBA No. 55839 PERKINS COIE LLP Donald Houser (Pro Hac Vice) ALSTON & BIRD LLP Attorneys for Defendant T-Mobile USA, Inc.
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO STAY CASE PENDING THE JUDICIAL PANEL ON MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION'S RULING ON THE PENDING MOTION TO TRANSFER
JOHN C. COUGHENOUR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Under Western District of Washington Local Rules 7(d)(1) and 10(g), Plaintiffs Tamara Ferguson and Brian Heinz and Defendant T-Mobile USA, Inc., move the Court to stay all proceedings and deadlines in this action until the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (“JPML”) rules on the pending petition to transfer under 28 U.S.C. § 1407 (“Petition”). See In re T-Mobile 2022 Customer Data Sec. Breach Litig. (“In re: T-Mobile”), MDL No. 3073 (ECF No. 1). If the JPML denies the Petition, T-Mobile's response to the Complaint will be due 30 days from that denial. In support of this motion, the Parties state:
Plaintiffs filed this case on January 31, 2023. See ECF No. 1. Plaintiffs allege T-Mobile failed to adequately safeguard the personal information of its customers from a criminal third-party actor. Id. The plaintiffs in more than 10 putative class actions have made similar allegations against T-Mobile based on the same data-security incident. See In re T-Mobile, MDL No. 3073 (ECF No. 1-1). Those cases are pending in at least nine federal judicial districts. See In re T-Mobile, MDL No. 3037 (ECF No. 1-2).
This Court recently stayed a related case against T-Mobile pending the JPML's transfer ruling. Dollson v. T-Mobile US, Inc., No. 1:23-cv-172 (W.D. Wash. Feb. 28, 2023) (ECF No. 24). And other courts in this district have previously done the same. E.g., Daruwalla v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., No. 2:21-cv-01118-BJR (W.D. Wash. Oct. 29, 2021) (ECF No. 39); Rogoff v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., No. 2:21-CV-01157-BJR, 2021 WL 5279921, at *1 (W.D. Wash. Nov. 12, 2021). Courts in this district have also recognized that conserving resources presents good cause for a stay when there is a pending JPML petition.
See, e.g., Donovan v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., No. 2:21-cv-01138-BJR (W.D. Wash. Sept. 20, 2021) (ECF No. 13); Akins v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., No. 2:21-cv-01179-BJR (W.D. Wash. Sept. 20, 2021) (ECF No. 11); Hughes v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., No. 2:21-cv-01139-BJR (W.D. Wash. Sept. 20, 2021) (ECF No. 15); Villalon v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., No. 2:21-cv-1148-BJR (W.D. Wash. Sept. 20, 2021) (ECF No. 13); Espanoza v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., No. 2:21-cv-1119-BJR (W.D. Wash. Sept. 20, 2021) (ECF No. 30); Huerta v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., No. 2:21-cv-01183-BJR (W.D. Wash. Sept. 29, 2021) (ECF No. 10); Brackman v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., No. 2:21-cv-01277-BJR (W.D. Wash. Oct. 6, 2021) (ECF No. 13); Schupler v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., No. 2:21-01161-BJR (W.D. Wash. Nov. 1, 2021) (ECF No. 9).
This case was noticed to the JPML as related to Clark v. T-Mobile US, Inc., No. 2:23-cv-00103 (W.D. Wash.). See In re: T-Mobile, MDL No. 3073 (ECF No. 1-2). Because it is possible the JPML will grant the pending Petition to transfer and coordinate or consolidate the related cases-including this one-for pretrial proceedings under 28 U.S.C. § 1407, the Parties think staying this case will conserve their resources and the Court's. See Daruwalla, No. 2:21-cv-01118-BJR (ECF No. 39). Under these circumstances, “[c]ourts frequently grant stays pending a decision by the MDL Panel regarding whether to transfer a case.” Good v. Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 5 F.Supp.2d 804, 809 (N.D. Cal. 1998).
The Court should grant the Parties a short stay of proceedings until the JPML rules on the Petition. And if the JPML denies the Petition, T-Mobile's response to the Complaint will be due 30 days from that denial.
[PROPOSED] ORDER
IT IS SO ORDERED.