Opinion
2:21-cv-01161-BJR
11-01-2021
STUART SCHUPLER, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff, v. T-MOBILE USA, INC., Defendant.
Steve Y. Koh, WSBA No. 23284 Kathleen M. O'Sullivan, WSBA No. 27850 Lauren J. Tsuji, WSBA No. 55839 PERKINS COIE LLP Kristine McAlister Brown (pro hac vice) ALSTON & BIRD LLP Attorneys for Defendant T-Mobile USA, Inc. Duncan C. Turner, WSBA No. 20597 BADGLEY MULLINS TURNER PLLC Thomas J. McKenna (pro hac vice to be filed) Gregory M. Egleston (pro hac vice to be filed) GAINEY McKENNA & EGLESTON Attorneys for Plaintiff
Steve Y. Koh, WSBA No. 23284 Kathleen M. O'Sullivan, WSBA No. 27850 Lauren J. Tsuji, WSBA No. 55839 PERKINS COIE LLP Kristine McAlister Brown (pro hac vice) ALSTON & BIRD LLP Attorneys for Defendant T-Mobile USA, Inc.
Duncan C. Turner, WSBA No. 20597 BADGLEY MULLINS TURNER PLLC Thomas J. McKenna (pro hac vice to be filed) Gregory M. Egleston (pro hac vice to be filed) GAINEY McKENNA & EGLESTON Attorneys for Plaintiff
STIPULATED MOTION AND ORDER TO STAY PROCEEDINGS PENDING JPML'S RULING ON TRANSFER
THE HONORABLE BARBARA J. ROTHSTEIN
Under Western District of Washington Local Rules 7(d)(1) and 10(g), Plaintiff Stuart Schupler and Defendant T-Mobile USA, Inc. (together "the Parties"), move the Court to temporarily stay all proceedings and deadlines in this action pending a ruling by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ("JPML") on the pending motion to transfer under 28 U.S.C. § 1407. See In re: T-Mobile Customer Data Sec. Breach Litig., MDL No. 3019 (ECF No. 1). In support of this motion, the Parties state:
Plaintiff filed this case on August 26, 2021. See ECF No. 1. Plaintiff alleges T-Mobile failed to adequately safeguard the personal information of its customers from a criminal third-party actor. Id. The plaintiffs in over 40 putative class actions have made similar allegations against T-Mobile based on the data-security incident. See In re T-Mobile, MDL No. 3019 (ECF Nos. 1-1, 2, 8-1, 11, 20, 48, 62, 65, 70). These cases are pending in over ten federal judicial districts. See id.
Good cause exists for a temporary stay because-given the No. of similar, overlapping cases-it is likely the JPML will grant the pending motion to transfer and coordinate or consolidate the related cases for pretrial proceedings under 28 U.S.C. § 1407. See Id. (ECF No. 1). This case was noticed to the JPML because of its related nature. See Id. (ECF No. 11). In order to conserve judicial resources and the resources of the Parties in addressing multiple, related putative class actions, the Parties agree to this temporary stay. 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); see Short v. Hyundai Motor Am. Inc., No. CI9-O3I8JLR., 2019 WL 3067251 (W.D. Wash. July 12, 2019) (granting stay pending JPML's ruling on Section 1407 motion); Gonzalez v. Merck & Co., No. 07-cv-3034, 2007 WL 2220286, at *2 (E.D. Wash. Aug. 2, 2007) (granting defendant's motion to stay pending transfer decision and noting that "well settled case law . . . dictates a stay should be granted to promote judicial economy"); Rivers v. Walt Disney Co., 980 F.Supp. 1358, 1362 (CD. Cal. 1997) (granting stay pending JPML's ruling because "a majority of courts have concluded that it is often appropriate to stay preliminary pretrial proceedings while a motion to transfer and consolidate is pending with the MDL Panel"); Bonefant v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., No. 07-cv-60301, 2007 WL 2409980, at *l (S.D. Fla. July 31, 2007) ("[I]t is common practice for courts to stay an action pending a transfer decision by the JPML.").
Moreover, pursuant to stipulated motions, this Court recently stayed seven cases pending the JPML's ruling on a motion to transfer. See Donovan v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., No. 2:2l-cv-01138-BJR (W.D. Wash, filed Sept. 15, 2021) (ECF No. 12); Akins v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., No. 2:21-cv-01179-BJR (W.D. Wash, filed Sept. 15, 2021) (ECF No. 8); Hughes v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., No. 2:21-cv-01139-BJR (W.D. Wash, filed Sept. 17, 2021) (ECF No. 14); Villalon v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., No. 2:21-cv-1148-BJR (W.D. Wash, filed Sept. 17, 2021) (ECF No. 11); Espanozav. T-Mobile USA, Inc., No. 2:21-cv-1119-BJR (W.D. Wash, filed Sept. 17, 2021) (ECF No. 29); Huerta v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., No. 2:21-cv-01183-BJR (W.D. Wash, filed Aug. 31, 2021) (ECF No. 10); Brackman v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., No. 2:21-cv-01277-BJR (W.D. Wash, filed Sept. 21, 2021) (ECF No. 13). Nine other courts have also granted similar stays. See Avrechv. T-Mobile USA, Inc., No. 4:21-cv-6660 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 1, 2021) (ECF No. 27); Savickv. T-Mobile USA, Inc., No. 3:21-cv-16005 (D.N.J. Oct. 4, 2021) (ECF No. 12); Hill v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., No. 2:2l-cv-4164 (W.D. Mo. Oct. 5, 2021) (ECF No. 14); Sadrgilany v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., No. 3:2l-cv-16155 (D.N.J. Oct. 7, 2021) (ECF No. 11); Christie v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., No. 3:21-cv-16181 (D.N.J. Oct. 7, 2021) (ECF No. 10); Palomino v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., No. 3:21-cv-16536 (D.N.J. Oct. 8, 2021) (ECF No. 12); Peralta v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., No. 5:21-cv-838 (W.D. Okla. Oct. 8, 2021) (ECF No. 10); Feinbergv. T-Mobile USA, Inc., No. 2:21-cv-7531 (CD. Cal. Oct. 12, 2021) (ECF No. 16); Lang v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., No. No. 5:21-cv-6879 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 14, 2021) (ECF No. 16); Lomax v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., No. 2:21-cv-1764 (D. Nev. Oct. 15, 2021) (ECF No. 14); Winkler v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., No. 7:21-cv-322 (S.D. Tex. Oct. 18, 2021) (ECF No. %);Metzger v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., No. 2:21-cv-4721 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 21, 2021) (docket order); Bensen v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., No. 6:21-cv-06628 (W.D.N.Y. Oct. 28, 2021) (ECF No. 6).
Consistent with those rulings, the Court should grant the Parties a short stay of proceedings until the JPML rules on the pending motion to transfer under Section 1407.
Dated: October 28, 2021
ORDER
IT IS SO ORDERED.