Dardarian v. Euromarket Designs, Inc., No. 3:2011cv00945 - Document 25 (N.D. Cal. 2011)
Court Description: ORDER GRANTING (24 in 3:11-cv-00945-JSW) Stipulation STAYING PROCEEDINGS PENDING DECISION ON DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO TRANSFER CASES PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. SECTION 1407 FOR COORDINATED OR CONSOLIDATED PRETRIAL PROCEEDINGS. Signed by Judge JEFFREY S. WHITE on 6/2/11. (jjoS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/2/2011)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Dardarian v. Euromarket Designs, Inc. Doc. 25 Case3:11-cv-00945-JSW Document24 Filed06/01/11 Page1 of 7 1 SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP A Limited Liability Partnership Including Professional Corporations 2 P. CRAIG CARDON, Cal. Bar No. 168646 3 DAVID R. GARCIA, Cal. Bar No. 151349 ELIZABETH S. BERMAN, Cal. Bar No. 252377 4 BRIAN R. BLACKMAN, Cal. Bar No. 196996 Four Embarcadero Center, 17th Floor 5 San Francisco, California 94111-4109 Telephone: 415-434-9100 6 Facsimile: 415-434-3947 ccardon@sheppardmullin.com 7 drgarcia@sheppardmullin.com eberman@sheppardmullin.com 8 bblackman@sheppardmullin.com 9 Attorneys for Defendant 10 EUROMARKET DESIGNS, INC. d/b/a CRATE & BARREL 11 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 13 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 14 15 NANCY DARDARIAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, 16 Plaintiffs, 17 v. 18 EUROMARKET DESIGNS, INC. d/b/a 19 CRATE & BARREL, an Illinois corporation, 20 Defendant. 21 Case No. 3:11-cv-00945-JSW CLASS ACTION STIPULATION AND [Proposed] ORDER STAYING PROCEEDINGS PENDING DECISION ON DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO TRANSFER CASES PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1407 FOR COORDINATED OR CONSOLIDATED PRETRIAL PROCEEDINGS 22 Complaint Filed: March 1, 2011 23 24 25 26 27 28 W02-WEST:1LDC2\403591514.1 3:11-cv-00945-JSW -1- STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED ORDER] STAYING PROCEEDINGS Dockets.Justia.com Case3:11-cv-00945-JSW Document24 1 Filed06/01/11 Page2 of 7 WHEREAS, on March 1, 2011, Plaintiff Nancy Dardarian ("Plaintiff") filed 2 her Complaint against Defendant Euromarket Designs, Inc. d/b/a Crate & Barrel ("Crate & 3 Barrel") in the above-captioned case, Dardarian v. Crate & Barrel, Case No. 3:11-cv4 00945-JSW (N.D. Cal.) ("Dardarian"); 5 6 WHEREAS, the following five related cases have also been filed against 7 Crate & Barrel: 8 9 1. 10 O'Connor v. Crate & Barrel, Case No. 3:11-cv-02140-SC (N.D. Cal.) ("O'Connor") 11 12 2. 13 Campbell v. Crate & Barrel, Case No. 3:11-cv-01368-JSW (N.D. Cal.) ("Campbell") 14 15 3. 16 Salmonson v. Crate & Barrel, Case No. 2:11-cv-02446-PSG -PLA (C.D. Cal.) ("Salmonson") 17 18 4. 19 Heon v. Crate & Barrel, Case No. 3:11-cv-00769-JLS -BGS (S.D. Cal.) ("Heon") 20 21 22 5. Shughrou v. Crate & Barrel, Case No. 4:11-cv-02325-LB (N.D. Cal.) ("Shughrou"); 23 24 WHEREAS, plaintiffs in all six of these actions purport to represent a class 25 of California consumers and allege that Crate & Barrel unlawfully requested and recorded 26 personal identification information from customers who purchased goods using credit 27 cards at Crate & Barrel's retail establishments; 28 W02-WEST:1LDC2\403591514.1 3:11-cv-00945-JSW -2- STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED ORDER] STAYING PROCEEDINGS Case3:11-cv-00945-JSW Document24 1 Filed06/01/11 Page3 of 7 WHEREAS, plaintiffs in all six actions allege that this practice violates 2 California Civil Code § 1747.08 (the "Song-Beverly Credit Card Act" or "Act"); 3 4 WHEREAS, all six actions will require a court to resolve nearly identical 5 factual issues relating to a single common defendant, Crate & Barrel; 6 7 WHEREAS, the parties agree that centralization of all six actions for 8 coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1407, because 9 they share common factual questions, and also because centralization would be convenient 10 and would promote the just and efficient conduct of pretrial proceedings; 11 12 WHEREAS, on May 11, 2011, before the United States Judicial Panel on 13 Multidistrict Litigation ("JPML"), Crate & Barrel filed a Motion to Transfer Heon, 14 Dardarian, O'Connor, Campbell and Salmonson for coordinated or consolidated pretrial 15 proceedings pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407; 16 17 WHEREAS, on May 31, 2011, Crate & Barrel filed a Notice of Tag-Along 18 Action before the JPML seeking to centralize Shughrou together with the actions already 19 encompassed by its Motion to Transfer; 20 21 WHEREAS, all six actions are likely to be centralized because they share 22 common factual questions, and also because centralization would be convenient and would 23 promote the just and efficient conduct of pretrial proceedings. See, e.g., In re Payless 24 Shoesource, Inc., California Song-Beverly Credit Card Act Litig., 609 F. Supp. 2d 1372 25 (J.P.M.L. 2009) (centralizing two putative class actions alleging identical violations of the 26 Song-Beverly Credit Card Act). 27 28 W02-WEST:1LDC2\403591514.1 3:11-cv-00945-JSW -3- STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED ORDER] STAYING PROCEEDINGS Case3:11-cv-00945-JSW Document24 1 Filed06/01/11 Page4 of 7 WHEREAS, conducting pretrial proceedings while Crate & Barrel's Motion 2 to Transfer is pending would impose an undue burden on the parties and the Court if the 3 JPML ultimately grants Crate & Barrel's Motion to Transfer, because any pretrial 4 proceedings conducted now would likely be wasted or need to be repeated; 5 6 WHEREAS, neither party will suffer any prejudice, hardship or inequity if 7 these proceedings are stayed pending the JPML's decision on Crate & Barrel's Motion to 8 Transfer; 9 10 WHEREAS, the Court has the inherent power to stay all proceedings 11 pending the JPML's decision on Crate & Barrel's Motion to Transfer; 12 13 WHEREAS, staying all proceedings pending the JPML's decision on Crate 14 & Barrel's Motion to Transfer would serve the interests of judicial economy and 15 efficiency, for all the reasons discussed above; 16 17 WHEREAS, courts routinely stay all proceedings pending the JPML's 18 determination of a motion to transfer based on the likelihood of transfer, the absence of 19 prejudice, and the interests of judicial economy and efficiency. See, e.g., Clark v. Payless 20 Shoesource, Inc., Case No. 08-CV-08213 (C.D. Cal. Order filed Dec. 29, 2008) (entering 21 stipulated order staying all proceedings in a putative class action alleging violations of the 22 Song-Beverly Credit Card Act); Oregon ex rel. Kroger v. Johnson & Johnson, Case No. 23 11-CV-86-AC, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 39187 (D. Or., Apr. 8, 2011) (granting motion to 24 stay pending JPML decision on motion to transfer); Barnes v. Equinox Group, Inc., Case 25 No. C 10-03586, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 138863 (N.D. Cal., Dec. 30, 2010) (same); 26 Cottle-Banks v. Cox Communications, Inc., Case No. 10-cv-2133, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27 138195 (S.D. Cal., Dec. 30, 2010) (same); Gordillo v. Bank of Am., Case No. 1:09-cv28 01954, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7954 (E.D. Cal., Jan. 13, 2010) (same); Sanborn v. W02-WEST:1LDC2\403591514.1 3:11-cv-00945-JSW -4- STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED ORDER] STAYING PROCEEDINGS Case3:11-cv-00945-JSW Document24 Filed06/01/11 Page5 of 7 1 Asbestos Corp., Ltd., Case No. C 08-5260, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7528 (N.D. Cal., Jan. 2 27, 2009) (same); Lyman v. Asbestos Defendants (B*P), Case No. C 07-4240, 2007 U.S. 3 Dist. LEXIS 78766 (N.D. Cal., Oct. 10, 2007) (same); Nielsen v. Merck and Co., Case No. 4 C 07-00076, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21250 (N.D. Cal., Mar. 15, 2007) (same); Collum v. 5 Astrazenca Pharm., L.P., Case No. C 06-0662, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 64861 (N.D. Cal., 6 Aug. 29, 2006) (same); Rivers v. The Walt Disney Co., 980 F. Supp. 1358, 1362 (C.D. Cal. 7 1997) (granting motion to stay pending JPML decision on motion to transfer, holding: 8 "[I]t appears that a majority of courts have concluded that it is often appropriate to stay 9 preliminary pretrial proceedings while a motion to transfer and consolidate is pending with 10 the MDL Panel because of the judicial resources that are conserved."); 11 12 NOW THEREFORE, it is stipulated by the undersigned counsel on behalf of 13 the parties below, and subject to the Court's approval, that: 14 15 All proceedings in this action are stayed pending the JPML's decision on 16 Crate & Barrel's Motion to Transfer Cases for Consolidated or Coordinated Pretrial 17 Proceedings (MDL No. 2260). 18 19 IT IS SO STIPULATED. 20 21 Dated: June 1, 2011 22 HOFFMAN & LAZEAR 23 By 24 s/ Chad A. Saunders H. TIM HOFFMAN ARTHUR W. LAZEAR CHAD A. SAUNDERS 25 26 27 Attorneys for Plaintiff NANCY DARDARIAN 28 W02-WEST:1LDC2\403591514.1 3:11-cv-00945-JSW -5- STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED ORDER] STAYING PROCEEDINGS Case3:11-cv-00945-JSW Document24 Filed06/01/11 Page6 of 7 1 Dated: June 1, 2011 2 SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP 3 By 4 s/ Elizabeth S. Berman P. CRAIG CARDON DAVID R. GARCIA BRIAN R. BLACKMAN ELIZABETH S. BERMAN 5 6 7 Attorneys for Defendant EUROMARKET DESIGNS, INC. d/b/a CRATE & BARREL 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED. June 2 11 Dated:_____________, 20___ ______________________________________ 15 Jeffrey S. White United States District Judge Northern District of California 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 W02-WEST:1LDC2\403591514.1 3:11-cv-00945-JSW -6- STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED ORDER] STAYING PROCEEDINGS
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
