City of Fresno v. 3M Company, et al.

E.D. California

City of Fresno v. 3M Company, et al.

DecidedJanuary 26, 2026

Docket1:25-cv-02057

StatusUnknown

This text of City of Fresno v. 3M Company, et al. (City of Fresno v. 3M Company, et al.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

City of Fresno v. 3M Company, et al., (E.D. Cal. 2026).

Pincite

Opinion

7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 CITY OF FRESNO, Case No. 1:25-cv-02057-FRS 11 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO STAY 12 AND STAYING THIS MATTER v. 13 (ECF No. 16) 3M COMPANY, et al., 14 Defendants. 15 16 On January 13, 2026, Defendant 3M Company (“3M”) filed a motion to stay this matter 17 pending a final decision from the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (“JPML”) on whether 18 to transfer this matter to In re Aqueous Film-Forming Foams (AFFF) Products Liability 19 Litigation (MDL No. 2873) (ECF No. 16.) Concurrently with the motion, 3M filed an ex parte 20 application to shorten time regarding the briefing schedule of the motion. (Id.) On January 14, 21 2026, the Court granted the application and set a due date for an opposition or non-opposition by 22 January 20, 2026. (ECF No. 19.) That date has passed, and no other party has filed an 23 opposition. Accordingly, the Court takes the matter under submission, noting that no other party 24 file opposition to the stay. 25 In the motion, as relevant here, 3M notes that on January 7, 2026, the Clerk of the JPML 26 issued a Conditional Transfer Order, concluding that “[i]t appears that [this action] involve[s] 27 questions of fact that are common to the actions previously transferred” to the MDL. (ECF No. 16-1, p. 3, citing Exh. A, Conditional Transfer Order (CTO-295), U.S. JPML (MDL No. 2873), 1 ECF No. 16-1 p. 13.)1 In light of this, 3M moves the Court for a temporary stay, pending the 2 JPML’s final decision on transfer—which is expected no later than early April 2026 because the 3 JPML’s current session will end on March 26, 2026. (ECF No. 16-1, p. 3.) 4 A district court “has broad discretion to stay proceedings as an incident to its power to 5 control its own docket.” Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 706 (1997), citing Landis v. North 6 America Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936). A stay is discretionary and the “party requesting a stay 7 bears the burden of showing that the circumstances justify an exercise of that discretion.” Nken 8 v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 433-34 (2009). “Generally, stays should not be indefinite in nature.” 9 Dependable Highway Exp., Inc. v. Navigators Ins. Co., 498 F.3d 1059, 1066-67 (9th Cir. 2007). 10 Instead, district courts should “balance the length of any stay against the strength of the 11 justification given for it.” Young v. I.N.S., 208 F.3d 1116, 1119 (9th Cir. 2000) (discussing that 12 if a stay is especially long or its term is indefinite, a greater showing is required to justify it). 13 In deciding whether to stay a case pending transfer, courts “balance the competing 14 interests of the moving and nonmoving parties[,]” in addition to considering judicial economy. 15 Conner v. AT&T, No. CV F 06-0632 AWI DLB, 2006 WL 1817094, at *3 (E.D. Cal. June 30, 16 2006). Applying these factors, courts “frequently grant stays pending a decision by the [JPML] 17 regarding whether to transfer a case.” Good v. Altria Grp., Inc., 624 F. Supp. 2d 132, 134 (D. 18 Me. 2009); see also Royal Park Invs. SA/NV v. Bank of Am. Corp., 941 F. Supp. 2d 367, 370 19 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) (“[W]here a multi-district litigation proceeding has been established, courts 20 have routinely stayed motions pending rulings by the JPML.”). The case for a stay is especially 21 strong where, as here, the JPML has already issued a conditional transfer order. See La 22 Fountaine v. McKesson Corp., No. C 13-5841 PJH, 2014 WL 12642161, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 5, 23 2014) (staying case following JPML’s issuance of conditional transfer order in order to “prevent 24 duplicative litigation and inconsistent rulings”); Tri-State Tint & Vinyl, LLC v. Erie Ins. Prop. & 25 Cas. Co., No. 5:21CV-76, 2021 WL 12368835, at *1 (N.D.W. Va. May 19, 2021) (“Given the 26 JPML’s [Conditional Transfer] Order, . . . the interests of judicial economy heavily favor a stay 27 1 For clarity, the Court cites to the CM/ECF page number stamped in the upper left-hand corner of the filings, which 1 in this case.”); Lac Courte Oreilles Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians v. McKesson 2 Corp., No. 18-CV-286JDP, 2018 WL 2390120, at *2 (W.D. Wis. May 25, 2018) (staying case 3 pending JPML’s decision on motion to vacate CTO); Premera Blue Cross v. Change Healthcare, 4 Inc., No. 2:25-cv-00497JNW, 2025 WL 2675770, at *2 (W.D. Wash. June 3, 2025) (same). 5 3M begins with a discussion regarding judicial economy, with particular regard to other 6 cases stayed and then transferred in this MDL, which is well taken. See, e.g., Transfer Order at 7 1-2, ECF No. 3869 (J.P.M.L. Oct. 9, 2025); Transfer Order at 2-3, ECF No. 3536 (J.P.M.L. June 8 2, 2025). Indeed, it is this Court’s aim to ensure uniform decisions on pretrial matters in these 9 cases and conserve judicial resources because only one court may need to make such rulings. 10 3M also notes that forcing this litigation to continue when the matter has already been 11 conditionally transferred burdens all parties with initial disclosures or other motion practice, 12 discovery, or pretrial obligations during the brief period prior to transfer—imposing costs and 13 risks that are “greater than the approximate one to two month delay Plaintiffs will face.” Conner, 14 2006 WL 1817094, at *4. Finally, 3M observes that any prejudice to Plaintiff would be minimal 15 because courts routinely hold that short delays in proceedings pending resolution of a 16 defendant’s transfer motion. See J.W. v. Pfizer, Inc., No. 13-cv-00318-YGR, 2013 WL 17 1402962, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 5, 2013) (finding “no tangible harm” to the plaintiffs “from 18 waiting a term of months” for a JPML transfer decision, and concluding that “the value of 19 consistent rulings and efficient consideration of common issues” outweighed any benefit of 20 proceeding pending transfer); Jones v. Sanofi US Servs. Inc., No. CV 18-8268-R, 2018 WL 21 6842605, at *1 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 19, 2018) (“[A] stay would cause little prejudice to Plaintiffs, if 22 any. . . . No harm should result from a brief delay while the JPML decides whether to transfer 23 this case.”); see also Harboyan v. Johnson & Johnson Co., No. CV-17-5235-MWF (AFMx), 24 2017 WL 3635173, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 23, 2017); Gallagher v. Boehringer Ingelheim 25 Pharmaceuticals, Inc., No. 22-cv-10216 (LJL), 2023 WL 402191, at *9 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 25, 2023); 26 Royal Park, 941 F. Supp. 2d at 372.2 The Court agrees with 3M in all regards. 27 2 Even if the JPML were to deny the transfer, 3M argues that a stay through early April 2026 would still be minimal 1 In light of the forgoing and the Conditional Transfer Order (ECF No. 16-1, p. 13)—along 2 | with no party filing opposition—the Court need not reinvent the wheel in concluding that a stay 3 | is warranted in this action pending the final decision from the JPML regarding transfer. The 4 | only mater left for the Court to determine is when to terminate the stay. Given that the JPML’s 5 | session ends on March 26, 2026, the Court finds a stay to be appropriate through April 20, 2026. 6 | At that time, the Court will require 3M to file a status report regarding the JPML’s final decision 7 | regarding transferring this matter and whether an extension of the stay is warranted. Of course, 8 | should a final decision be reached earlier, 3M may let the Court know sooner.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 CITY OF FRESNO, Case No. 1:25-cv-02057-FRS 11 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO STAY 12 AND STAYING THIS MATTER v. 13 (ECF No. 16) 3M COMPANY, et al., 14 Defendants. 15 16 On January 13, 2026, Defendant 3M Company (“3M”) filed a motion to stay this matter 17 pending a final decision from the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (“JPML”) on whether 18 to transfer this matter to In re Aqueous Film-Forming Foams (AFFF) Products Liability 19 Litigation (MDL No. 2873) (ECF No. 16.) Concurrently with the motion, 3M filed an ex parte 20 application to shorten time regarding the briefing schedule of the motion. (Id.) On January 14, 21 2026, the Court granted the application and set a due date for an opposition or non-opposition by 22 January 20, 2026. (ECF No. 19.) That date has passed, and no other party has filed an 23 opposition. Accordingly, the Court takes the matter under submission, noting that no other party 24 file opposition to the stay. 25 In the motion, as relevant here, 3M notes that on January 7, 2026, the Clerk of the JPML 26 issued a Conditional Transfer Order, concluding that “[i]t appears that [this action] involve[s] 27 questions of fact that are common to the actions previously transferred” to the MDL. (ECF No. 16-1, p. 3, citing Exh. A, Conditional Transfer Order (CTO-295), U.S. JPML (MDL No. 2873), 1 ECF No. 16-1 p. 13.)1 In light of this, 3M moves the Court for a temporary stay, pending the 2 JPML’s final decision on transfer—which is expected no later than early April 2026 because the 3 JPML’s current session will end on March 26, 2026. (ECF No. 16-1, p. 3.) 4 A district court “has broad discretion to stay proceedings as an incident to its power to 5 control its own docket.” Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 706 (1997), citing Landis v. North 6 America Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936). A stay is discretionary and the “party requesting a stay 7 bears the burden of showing that the circumstances justify an exercise of that discretion.” Nken 8 v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 433-34 (2009). “Generally, stays should not be indefinite in nature.” 9 Dependable Highway Exp., Inc. v. Navigators Ins. Co., 498 F.3d 1059, 1066-67 (9th Cir. 2007). 10 Instead, district courts should “balance the length of any stay against the strength of the 11 justification given for it.” Young v. I.N.S., 208 F.3d 1116, 1119 (9th Cir. 2000) (discussing that 12 if a stay is especially long or its term is indefinite, a greater showing is required to justify it). 13 In deciding whether to stay a case pending transfer, courts “balance the competing 14 interests of the moving and nonmoving parties[,]” in addition to considering judicial economy. 15 Conner v. AT&T, No. CV F 06-0632 AWI DLB, 2006 WL 1817094, at *3 (E.D. Cal. June 30, 16 2006). Applying these factors, courts “frequently grant stays pending a decision by the [JPML] 17 regarding whether to transfer a case.” Good v. Altria Grp., Inc., 624 F. Supp. 2d 132, 134 (D. 18 Me. 2009); see also Royal Park Invs. SA/NV v. Bank of Am. Corp., 941 F. Supp. 2d 367, 370 19 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) (“[W]here a multi-district litigation proceeding has been established, courts 20 have routinely stayed motions pending rulings by the JPML.”). The case for a stay is especially 21 strong where, as here, the JPML has already issued a conditional transfer order. See La 22 Fountaine v. McKesson Corp., No. C 13-5841 PJH, 2014 WL 12642161, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 5, 23 2014) (staying case following JPML’s issuance of conditional transfer order in order to “prevent 24 duplicative litigation and inconsistent rulings”); Tri-State Tint & Vinyl, LLC v. Erie Ins. Prop. & 25 Cas. Co., No. 5:21CV-76, 2021 WL 12368835, at *1 (N.D.W. Va. May 19, 2021) (“Given the 26 JPML’s [Conditional Transfer] Order, . . . the interests of judicial economy heavily favor a stay 27 1 For clarity, the Court cites to the CM/ECF page number stamped in the upper left-hand corner of the filings, which 1 in this case.”); Lac Courte Oreilles Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians v. McKesson 2 Corp., No. 18-CV-286JDP, 2018 WL 2390120, at *2 (W.D. Wis. May 25, 2018) (staying case 3 pending JPML’s decision on motion to vacate CTO); Premera Blue Cross v. Change Healthcare, 4 Inc., No. 2:25-cv-00497JNW, 2025 WL 2675770, at *2 (W.D. Wash. June 3, 2025) (same). 5 3M begins with a discussion regarding judicial economy, with particular regard to other 6 cases stayed and then transferred in this MDL, which is well taken. See, e.g., Transfer Order at 7 1-2, ECF No. 3869 (J.P.M.L. Oct. 9, 2025); Transfer Order at 2-3, ECF No. 3536 (J.P.M.L. June 8 2, 2025). Indeed, it is this Court’s aim to ensure uniform decisions on pretrial matters in these 9 cases and conserve judicial resources because only one court may need to make such rulings. 10 3M also notes that forcing this litigation to continue when the matter has already been 11 conditionally transferred burdens all parties with initial disclosures or other motion practice, 12 discovery, or pretrial obligations during the brief period prior to transfer—imposing costs and 13 risks that are “greater than the approximate one to two month delay Plaintiffs will face.” Conner, 14 2006 WL 1817094, at *4. Finally, 3M observes that any prejudice to Plaintiff would be minimal 15 because courts routinely hold that short delays in proceedings pending resolution of a 16 defendant’s transfer motion. See J.W. v. Pfizer, Inc., No. 13-cv-00318-YGR, 2013 WL 17 1402962, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 5, 2013) (finding “no tangible harm” to the plaintiffs “from 18 waiting a term of months” for a JPML transfer decision, and concluding that “the value of 19 consistent rulings and efficient consideration of common issues” outweighed any benefit of 20 proceeding pending transfer); Jones v. Sanofi US Servs. Inc., No. CV 18-8268-R, 2018 WL 21 6842605, at *1 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 19, 2018) (“[A] stay would cause little prejudice to Plaintiffs, if 22 any. . . . No harm should result from a brief delay while the JPML decides whether to transfer 23 this case.”); see also Harboyan v. Johnson & Johnson Co., No. CV-17-5235-MWF (AFMx), 24 2017 WL 3635173, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 23, 2017); Gallagher v. Boehringer Ingelheim 25 Pharmaceuticals, Inc., No. 22-cv-10216 (LJL), 2023 WL 402191, at *9 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 25, 2023); 26 Royal Park, 941 F. Supp. 2d at 372.2 The Court agrees with 3M in all regards. 27 2 Even if the JPML were to deny the transfer, 3M argues that a stay through early April 2026 would still be minimal 1 In light of the forgoing and the Conditional Transfer Order (ECF No. 16-1, p. 13)—along 2 | with no party filing opposition—the Court need not reinvent the wheel in concluding that a stay 3 | is warranted in this action pending the final decision from the JPML regarding transfer. The 4 | only mater left for the Court to determine is when to terminate the stay. Given that the JPML’s 5 | session ends on March 26, 2026, the Court finds a stay to be appropriate through April 20, 2026. 6 | At that time, the Court will require 3M to file a status report regarding the JPML’s final decision 7 | regarding transferring this matter and whether an extension of the stay is warranted. Of course, 8 | should a final decision be reached earlier, 3M may let the Court know sooner. 9 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant’s motion to stay (ECF No. 16) 10 |is GRANTED. This matter is STAYED through April 20, 2026, pending the final decision of 11 | the JPML regarding whether to transfer this matter to In re Aqueous Film-Forming Foams 12 | (AFFF) Products Liability Litigation (MDL No. 2873). On April 20, 2026, Defendant 3M 13 | Company shall file a status report regarding the final decision and, if appropriate, move for an 14 | extension of the stay. Should the JMPL decline the transfer, the Court will reset appropriate 15 | deadlines, including setting an answer deadline and an initial scheduling conference. 16 In light of this ruling, the Court need not address certain Defendants’ stipulations to 17 | extend answer deadlines as they are MOOT in light of the stay. (ECF Nos. 21, 22, 26, 28.) 18 | Additionally, the Court DIRECTS the Clerk to terminate ECF No. 15 as MOOT. 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. OF. nf Se 21 | Dated: _ January 23, 2026 _ ofS STANLEY A. BOONE 22 United States Magistrate Judge 23 24 25 26 27 28

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

City of Fresno v. 3M Company, et al., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/city-of-fresno-v-3m-company-et-al-caed-2026.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack