Romoff v. Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc.

• Court: District Court, S.D. California
• Decided: April 14, 2022
• Docket: 3:22-cv-00075
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ROBERT ROMOFF, individually and Case No.: 22cv00075-LL-WVG on behalf of all others similarly situated, 12 ORDER ON DEFENDANT’S Plaintiff, 13 MOTION TO STAY PENDING v. RESOLUTION OF ITS TRANSFER 14 MOTION JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER 15 INC., a New Jersey corporation, [ECF Nos. 16, 17, 18] 16 Defendant. 17 18 I. BACKGROUND 19 The Court incorporates its factual and procedural history from its previous two 20 orders. See ECF Nos. 8, 13. In the most recent order, the Court granted the parties’ joint 21 motion to extend the responsive pleading deadline of Defendant Johnson & Johnson 22 Consumer, Inc., a New Jersey corporation (“Defendant”) to two weeks after Plaintiff 23 Robert Romoff (“Plaintiff”) filed his amended complaint (i.e., Friday, April 15, 2022). 24 On April 8, 2022, however, Defendant filed a motion to transfer venue to the Eastern 25 District of Pennsylvania, which is scheduled to be heard on May 13, 2022. That same day, 26 Defendant filed an Ex Parte Motion to Stay the Deadline to Respond to the First Amended 27 Complaint Pending Resolution of the Motion to Transfer Venue, seeking to extend its 28 deadline to respond to the complaint until 14 days after the Court issues an order on the 1 pending motion to transfer venue. ECF No. 16. On April 11, 2022, Plaintiff opposed the 2 stay. ECF Nos. 17, 18. After considering the papers submitted, supporting documentation, 3 and applicable law, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s Motion. 4 II. LEGAL STANDARD 5 A court’s power to stay proceedings is incidental to the inherent power to control the 6 disposition of its cases in the interests of efficiency and fairness to the court, counsel, and 7 litigants. Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254-55 (1936). A stay may be granted 8 pending the outcome of other legal proceedings related to the case in the interests of judicial 9 economy. Leyva v. Certified Grocers of Cal., Ltd., 593 F.2d 857, 863-64 (9th Cir. 1979). 10 Discretion to stay a case is appropriately exercised when the resolution of another matter 11 will have a direct impact on the issues before the court, thereby substantially simplifying 12 the issues presented. Mediterranean Enters., Inc. v. Ssangyong Corp., 708 F.2d 1458, 1465 13 (9th Cir. 1983). In determining whether a stay is appropriate, a district court “must weigh 14 competing interests and maintain an even balance.” Landis, 299 U.S. at 254-55. “[I]f there 15 is even a fair possibility that the stay … will work damage to some one else, the stay may 16 be inappropriate absent a showing by the moving party of hardship or inequity.” 17 Dependable Highway Express, Inc. v. Navigators Ins. Co., 498 F.3d 1059, 1066 (9th Cir. 18 2007) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). In determining whether a stay is 19 appropriate, a court considers the (1) “possibility damage may result from the granting of 20 a stay,” (2) “hardship or inequity which a party may suffer in being required to go forward,” 21 and (3) “orderly course of justice measured in terms of the simplifying or complicating of 22 issues, proof, and questions of law which could be expected to result from a stay.” CMAX, 23 Inc. v. Hall, 300 F.2d 265, 268 (9th Cir. 1962) (citing Landis, 299 U.S. at 254-55). 24 III. DISCUSSION 25 Defendant argues that other district courts have granted stays in similar 26 circumstances, neither party will be injured by the brief stay, and the Court may save time 27 and resources by avoiding ruling on a motion to dismiss if it decides to transfer venue. 28 ECF No. 16 at 3:9-4:5 (citing, inter alia, McGahee v. Trumbull Ins. Co., Civil Action No. | 11-cv-03007-W YD-MEH, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 149983, at *7 (D. Colo. Dec. 29, 2011) 2 (granting a motion to stay proceedings pending determination of a motion to transfer venue 3 Il because “delay seems less likely given the relative simplicity of the pending motion and 4 || the speed with which the Court anticipates its resolution”); In re Horseshoe Entm’t, 337 5 429, 433 (Sth Cir. 2003) (noting that disposition of the petitioner’s transfer motion © ||*should have taken a top priority in the handling of this case by the Middle District 7 Court’)). Plaintiff responds that regardless of venue, Defendant’s motion to dismiss will 8 |! need to be fully briefed at some point, so a stay would not save the Court or parties ? |I resources and would only delay briefing that must take place anyway. ECF No. 18 at 2:1- 10 Plaintiff distinguishes the cases relied upon by Defendant by noting that in McGahee, 11 Plaintiff agreed to the stay, and in Horseshoe, the court “had ‘waited some 13 months’ to 12 |/ rule on the transfer motion.” Jd. at 2:9-3:2 (quoting Horseshoe, 337 F.3d at 433). Plaintiff 13 |) also argues that “Defendant’s motion to transfer is unlikely to prevail.” Jd. at 3:9-22. 14 “Courts have recognized that a civil plaintiff has an interest in having her case 15 |lresolved quickly.” ESG Capital Partners LP vy. Stratos, 22 F. Supp. 3d 1042, 1046 (C.D. 16 || Cal. 2014). However, in this case, the Court finds that (1) the possibility of damage from 17 the stay is minimal given Defendant’s motion to transfer venue has a hearing date in May; 18 |! (2) Defendant may suffer hardship in being required to prepare a motion to dismiss in this 19 || Court if the case is transferred to another court, which may have different motion-filing 20 || rules; and (3) a stay will not impact the orderly course of justice. CMAX, 300 F.2d at 268. 21 Tv. ORDER 22 Good cause appearing, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s motion for a stay. Other 23 |! than submitting the opposition and reply briefs for the pending motion to transfer, this case 24 |! is stayed until 14 calendar days after the entry of an order on the pending motion to transfer. 25 IT IS SO ORDERED. ) 26 || DATED: April 14, 2022 7 HON. LINDA LOPEZ 28 United States District Judge

-3-