Lien v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC

Opinion

1 2 3 4 7 8 PHAT T. LIEN, Case No. 23-cv-01268-CRB

9 Plaintiff,

ORDER STAYING CASE 10 v.

12 Defendant.

13 Plaintiff Phat T. Lien (“Lien”) brings this action for breach of warranty under 14 California’s Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act. See Compl. (dkt. 1-1). Defendant 15 Mercedes-Benz seeks dismissal of the case, primarily relying on Rodriguez v. FCA US., 16 LLC, 77 Cal. App. 5th 209 (2022), which held that a used vehicle purchased with an 17 unexpired express warranty was not a “new motor vehicle” under the Act. Id. at 220–22; 18 Mot. (dkt. 8). The California Supreme Court has granted review of Rodriguez, and has 19 instructed that it “may be cited, not only for its persuasive value, but also for the limited 20 purpose of establishing the existence of a conflict in authority that would in turn allow trial 21 courts to exercise discretion . . . to choose between sides of any such conflict.” Rodriguez 22 v. FCA US, 512 P.3d 654, 654 (Cal. 2022). Because the parties do not dispute that Lien 23 purchased a used vehicle with an unexpired warranty, see Jacobsen Decl. (dkt. 17-1) ¶¶ 4– 24 5, the parties urge the Court to decide whether it is persuaded by the reasoning of 25 Rodriguez while Rodriguez is pending before the California Supreme Court. Mot. at 2; 26 Opp’n (dkt. 17) at 3–5. 27 The Court need not do so. A district court “has broad discretion to stay proceedings 1 (1997). When considering whether to stay proceedings, a court weighs several competing 2 interests, including the “possible damage which may result in the granting of a stay, the 3 hardship or inequity which a party may suffer in being required to go forward, and the 4 orderly course of justice measured in terms of the simplifying or complicating of issues, 5 } proof, and questions of law which could be expected to result from a stay.” Lockyer v. 6 Mirant Corp., 398 F.3d 1098, 1110 (9th Cir. 2005) (quoting Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 7 U.S. 248, 268 (1936)). Courts regularly stay cases that will turn on pending decisions in 8 other courts, particularly where the pending case will result in controlling authority. See, 9 e.g., Wynn v. United Parcel Serv.. Inc., No. 21-CV-10029-CRB, 2022 WL 18912482 10 } (N.D. Cal. May 5, 2022); Franklin v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, No. 18-CV-03333-SI, 11 2020 WL 3316058 (N.D. Cal. June 18, 2020); Grundstrom v. Wilco Life Ins. Co., No. 20- 12 CV-03445-MMC, 2020 WL 6873645 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 13, 2020). Because the viability of € 13 || Lien’s express warranty claim turns on the outcome of Rodriguez, and Rodriguez is now 14 fully briefed before the California Supreme Court, any hardship or delay caused by a stay 15 } will likely be offset by conservation of judicial and party resources, narrowing the issues a 16 || for future motion practice. 5 17 The parties are directed to file a status update with the Court within 21 days of the 5 18 |} California Supreme Court’s decision in Rodriguez. 19 IT ISSO ORDERED. iE 20 Dated: June 13, 2023 CHARLES R. BREYER 21 United States District Judge 22 23 24 25 26 27 28