Kincheloe v. American Airlines, Inc.

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: April 13, 2021
• Docket: 5:21-cv-00515
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 SAN JOSE DIVISION 6 7 ROBERT KINCHELOE, et al., Case No. 21-cv-00515-BLF

8 Plaintiffs, ORDER DENYING MOTION TO STAY 9 v. BRIEFING ON MOTION FOR CONDITIONAL CLASS 10 AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC., CERTIFICATION 11 Defendant. [Re: ECF 23]

12 13 Before the Court is Defendant American Airlines’s motion to stay briefing on Plaintiff 14 Robert Kincheloe’s motion for conditional class certification pending this Court’s resolution of its 15 motion to transfer. See Mot., ECF 23. Mr. Kincheloe opposes this motion. See Opp’n, ECF 34. 16 The Court DENIES the motion. 17 The Court borrows and adapts the test used in this district to determine whether discovery 18 should be stayed pending resolution of a dispositive motion and applies it to the situation here. 19 See, e.g., In re Google Digital Advert. Antitrust Litig., No. 20-CV-03556-BLF, 2020 WL 7227159, 20 at *2 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 8, 2020), In re Nexus 6p Prod. Liab. Litig., No. 17-CV-02185-BLF, 2017 21 WL 3581188, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 18, 2017). In applying this test, the court must take a 22 “preliminary peek” at the merits of the pending motion to assess whether a stay is warranted. In re 23 Google, 2020 WL 7227159, at *2. 24 American Airlines argues that the standard for conditional certification in Age 25 Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”) and Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) collective 26 actions differs substantially in the Ninth and Fifth Circuits, and therefore the briefing on the 27 motion for conditional certification will depend substantially on the district in which the motion is 1 difference in standards, Swales v. KLLM Transport Services, LLC, 985 F.3d 430 (Sth Cir. 2021), 2 || may not apply to this case, and granting American Airlines’s motion to stay would cause 3 || unnecessary delay. Opp’n 3-5. Mr. Kincheloe also argues that the forum selection clause 4 || underpinning American Airlines’s motion to transfer is not valid. Opp’n 1-2. The Court takes a 5 “preliminary peek” at the merits of the underlying motion. In re Google, 2020 WL 7227159, at *2. 6 || The Court has reviewed the parties’ briefing on American Airlines’s motion to transfer. See Mot. 7 to Transfer, ECF 27; Opp’n to Mot. to Transfer, ECF 32; Reply, ECF 40. The Court finds that Mr. 8 Kincheloe’s arguments opposing transfer appear strong and thus a stay of the motion for 9 || conditional certification is not warranted. Accordingly, the Court DENIES American Airlines’s 10 |] motion. 11 IT IS SO ORDERED.

. || Dated: April 13, 2021 kom by

2 BETH LABSON FREEMAN 16 United States District Judge

18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28