Barnett v. Concentrix Solutions Corporation

• Court: District Court, D. Arizona
• Decided: April 26, 2022
• Docket: 2:22-cv-00266
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

9 Adam Barnett, No. CV-22-00266-PHX-DJH

10 Plaintiff, ORDER

11 v.

12 Concentrix Solutions Corporation, et al.,

13 Defendantss. 14 15 Pending before the Court is Defendants’ Motion to Stay Plaintiff’s Motion for 16 Conditional FLSA Certification (Doc. 27), filed on April 25, 2022. Plaintiff need not file 17 a response because the Motion is denied. 18 District courts “have the inherent authority to manage their dockets and courtrooms 19 with a view toward the efficient and expedient resolution of cases.” Dietz v. Bouldin, 579 20 U.S. 40, 47 (2016). When determining whether a stay is appropriate, courts weigh the 21 length of the stay against “the strength of the justification given for it.” Yong v. I.N.S., 208 22 F.3d 1116, 1119 (9th Cir. 2000). 23 Here, Defendants seeks to stay the briefing on Plaintiff’s Motion for Conditional 24 Certification (Doc. 19) until after the Court has ruled on its Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 12). 25 Defendants argue that the stay will prevent the parties from litigating what may be a 26 “potentially moot issue” if the Motion to Dismiss is granted. (Doc. 27 at 5). It also argues 27 that it “will have to expend considerable resources” in crafting its response to the Motion 28 for Conditional Certification. (Id. at 4). Finally, Defendants argue that it would waste 1 judicial resources to resolve the Motion for Conditional Certification before resolving the 2 Motion to Dismiss. 3 First, no judicial resources would be expended while the Court waits for the parties 4 complete the briefing on the Motion for Conditional Certification. In addition, it would 5 take little time for the Court to determine whether the Motion to Dismiss moots the Motion 6 for Conditional Certification. Therefore, no judicial resources would be wasted in allowing 7 the parties to complete their briefing. 8 Second, the only burden Defendants claims for itself is the preparation of a response 9 to the Motion for Conditional Certification. Had Defendants filed its Motion to Stay 10 earlier, this point may have been more persuasive. The Local Rules of Civil Procedure 11 provide that a party “shall . . . have fourteen (14) days” to “file a responsive memorandum.” 12 LRCiv 7.2(c). Plaintiff filed its Motion for Conditional Certification on April 19, 2022, 13 which sets Defendants’ deadline to respond for April 29, 2022. Defendants elected to file 14 its Motion to Stay on April 25, 2022, four days before the deadline. By the normal briefing 15 schedule, Plaintiff is entitled to fourteen days in which to respond to the Motion to Stay, 16 but at that point, Defendants would already have been required to file a response to the 17 Motion for Conditional Certification. By then, the only identifiable burden alleviated by a 18 stay would be moot. 19 Defendants go further to represent that crafting a response will require it to “conduct 20 factual discovery on Plaintiff’s allegations and interview employees regarding Plaintiff’s 21 allegations that there was a uniform violative policy or procedure.” (Doc. 27 at 5). All 22 this, Defendants imply, would need to be completed in the four days before its deadline to 23 respond. But to the extent Defendants argue that the urgency to complete this work 24 imposes a burden on it, the Court rejects such argument because Defendants have not 25 diligently sought a stay. 26 In sum, the Court finds that Defendants’ justification is too weak to grant the 27 requested stay. See Yong, 208 F.3d at 1119. 28 / / / 1 Accordingly, 2 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Stay (Doc. 27) is 3|| DENIED. 4 Dated this 26th day of April, 2022. 5 6 Do ee 7 norable'DiangJ4. Hurfetewa g United States District Fudge 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

-3-