Ocampo v. Apple Inc.

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 SAN JOSE DIVISION 7 8 JUSTIN OCAMPO, et al., Case No. 5:20-cv-05857-EJD

9 Plaintiffs, ORDER STAYING ACTION

v. 10

11 APPLE INC., Defendant. 12

13 At the Court’s request, the parties provided their respective positions on whether this 14 action should be stayed pending the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Taleshpour v. Apple Inc., No. 21- 15 16282 (9th Cir. 2021). Dkt. Nos. 64, 65. Having considered the parties’ statements, the Court 16 finds that a stay is appropriate. 17 “A district court has the inherent power to stay its proceedings. This power to stay is 18 ‘incidental to the power inherent in every court to control the disposition of the causes on its 19 docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants.’” Fuller v. 20 Amerigas Propane, Inc., No. 09-CV-2493-TEH, 2009 WL 2390358, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 3, 21 2009) (quoting Rivers v. Walt Disney Co., 980 F. Supp. 1358, 1360 (C.D. Cal. 1997)); see also 22 Lockyer v. Mirant Corp., 398 F.3d 1098, 1109 (9th Cir. 2005). In considering whether a stay is 23 appropriate, a court should weigh three factors: “[1] the possible damage which may result from 24 the granting of a stay, [2] the hardship or inequity which a party may suffer in being required to go 25 forward, and [3] the orderly course of justice measured in terms of the simplifying or complicating 26 of issues, proof, and questions of law which could be expected to result from a stay.” Fuller, 2009 27 WL 2390358, at *1 (quoting CMAX, Inc. v. Hall, 300 F.2d 265, 268 (9th Cir. 1962)). Here, there 1 appears to be no potential damage to any non-parties if the action is stayed. As to hardship or 2 || inequities, Apple’s arguments boil down to possibly having to continue to defend this action. On 3 the other hand, continuing to adjudicate this action to judgment would prejudice Plaintiffs if the 4 || Ninth Circuit reverses Taleshpour. Finally, the Court finds that judicial economy weighs in favor 5 || of astay. The Ninth Circuit’s decision will simplify this case in that it will provide clarity and 6 || guidance to the parties and the Court on how Plaintiffs may proceed—if at all—with their claims. 7 || Requiring Plaintiffs to amend their complaint now and/or issuing a judgment and requiring 8 Plaintiffs to appeal issues unrelated to Taleshpour would not be an efficient use of the parties’ or 9 the Court’s resources. 10 Accordingly, the Court STAYS the action. Plaintiffs shall file a Third Amended 11 Complaint within 10 days of the Ninth Circuit’s ruling in Taleshpour. 12 The Clerk of the Court shall administratively close the file. 5 13 IT IS SO ORDERED. 14 |] Dated: April 7, 2022

EDWARD J. DAVILA 17 United States District Judge 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 || Case No.: 5:20-cv-05857-EJD ORDER STAYING ACTION .