Shughrou v. Euromarket Designs, Inc., No. 4:2011cv02325 - Document 7 (N.D. Cal. 2011)

Court Description: STIPULATION AND ORDER 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 Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler on 6/6/2011. (ls, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/6/2011)
Download PDF
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 EUROMARKET DESIGNS, INC. 10 d/b/a CRATE & BARREL 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 12 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 13 14 Case No. 4:11-cv-02325-LB JESSICA SHUGHROU, an individual, on 15 behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, 16 Plaintiffs, 17 v. 18 EUROMARKET DESIGNS, INC., an 19 Illinois corporation, and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, 20 Defendants. 21 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 Complaint Filed: May 11, 2011 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 W02-WEST:1LDC2\403611830.1 Case No. 4:11-cv-02325-LB -1- STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED ORDER] STAYING PROCEEDINGS 1 WHEREAS, on March 1, 2011, Plaintiff Jessica Shughrou ("Plaintiff") filed 2 her Complaint against Defendant Euromarket Designs, Inc. d/b/a Crate & Barrel ("Crate & 3 Barrel") in the above-captioned case, Shughrou v. Crate & Barrel, Case No. 4:11-cv4 02325-LB (N.D. Cal.) ("Shughrou"); 5 6 WHEREAS, the following five related cases have also been filed against 7 Crate & Barrel: 8 9 1. 10 Dardarian v. Crate & Barrel, Case No. 3:11-cv-00945-JSW (N.D. Cal.) ("Dardarian") 11 12 2. 13 O'Connor v. Crate & Barrel, Case No. 3:11-cv-02140-SC (N.D. Cal.) ("O'Connor") 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. Campbell v. Crate & Barrel, Case No. 3:11-cv-01368-JSW (N.D. Cal.) ("Campbell"); 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\403611830.1 Case No. 4:11-cv-02325-LB -2- STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED ORDER] STAYING PROCEEDINGS 1 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\403611830.1 Case No. 4:11-cv-02325-LB -3- STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED ORDER] STAYING PROCEEDINGS 1 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, on June 1, 2011, the parties in Dardarian filed a substantially 18 similar Stipulation and Proposed Order Staying Proceedings pending the JPML's decision 19 on Crate & Barrel's Motion to Transfer; 20 21 WHEREAS, on June 2, 2011, the parties in Campbell filed a substantially 22 similar Stipulation and Proposed Order Staying Proceedings pending the JPML's decision 23 on Crate & Barrel's Motion to Transfer; 24 25 WHEREAS, on June 2, 2011, the parties in O'Connor filed a substantially 26 similar Stipulation and Proposed Order Staying Proceedings pending the JPML's decision 27 on Crate & Barrel's Motion to Transfer; 28 W02-WEST:1LDC2\403611830.1 Case No. 4:11-cv-02325-LB -4- STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED ORDER] STAYING PROCEEDINGS 1 WHEREAS, on June 2, 2011, District Judge Jeffrey S. White entered orders 2 staying the proceedings in Dardarian and Campbell pending the JPML's decision on Crate 3 & Barrel's Motion to Transfer; 4 5 WHEREAS, courts routinely stay all proceedings pending the JPML's 6 determination of a motion to transfer based on the likelihood of transfer, the absence of 7 prejudice, and the interests of judicial economy and efficiency. See, e.g., Clark v. Payless 8 Shoesource, Inc., Case No. 08-CV-08213 (C.D. Cal. Order filed Dec. 29, 2008) (entering 9 stipulated order staying all proceedings in a putative class action alleging violations of the 10 Song-Beverly Credit Card Act); Oregon ex rel. Kroger v. Johnson & Johnson, Case No. 11 11-CV-86-AC, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 39187 (D. Or., Apr. 8, 2011) (granting motion to 12 stay pending JPML decision on motion to transfer); Barnes v. Equinox Group, Inc., Case 13 No. C 10-03586, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 138863 (N.D. Cal., Dec. 30, 2010) (same); 14 Cottle-Banks v. Cox Communications, Inc., Case No. 10-cv-2133, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15 138195 (S.D. Cal., Dec. 30, 2010) (same); Gordillo v. Bank of Am., Case No. 1:09-cv16 01954, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7954 (E.D. Cal., Jan. 13, 2010) (same); Sanborn v. 17 Asbestos Corp., Ltd., Case No. C 08-5260, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7528 (N.D. Cal., Jan. 18 27, 2009) (same); Lyman v. Asbestos Defendants (B*P), Case No. C 07-4240, 2007 U.S. 19 Dist. LEXIS 78766 (N.D. Cal., Oct. 10, 2007) (same); Nielsen v. Merck and Co., Case No. 20 C 07-00076, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21250 (N.D. Cal., Mar. 15, 2007) (same); Collum v. 21 Astrazenca Pharm., L.P., Case No. C 06-0662, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 64861 (N.D. Cal., 22 Aug. 29, 2006) (same); Rivers v. The Walt Disney Co., 980 F. Supp. 1358, 1362 (C.D. Cal. 23 1997) (granting motion to stay pending JPML decision on motion to transfer, holding: 24 "[I]t appears that a majority of courts have concluded that it is often appropriate to stay 25 preliminary pretrial proceedings while a motion to transfer and consolidate is pending with 26 the MDL Panel because of the judicial resources that are conserved."); 27 28 W02-WEST:1LDC2\403611830.1 Case No. 4:11-cv-02325-LB -5- STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED ORDER] STAYING PROCEEDINGS 1 NOW THEREFORE, it is stipulated by the undersigned counsel on behalf of 2 the parties below, and subject to the Court's approval, that: 3 4 All proceedings in this action are stayed pending the JPML's decision on 5 Crate & Barrel's Motion to Transfer Cases for Consolidated or Coordinated Pretrial 6 Proceedings (MDL No. 2260). 7 8 IT IS SO STIPULATED. 9 10 Dated: June 3, 2011 JACZKO GODDARD LLP 11 By 12 s/ Allison H. Goddard ALLISON H. GODDARD 13 Attorneys for Plaintiff JESSICA SHUGHROU 14 15 16 Dated: June 3, 2011 17 SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP By s/ Elizabeth S. Berman P. CRAIG CARDON DAVID R. GARCIA BRIAN R. BLACKMAN ELIZABETH S. BERMAN 18 19 20 21 Attorneys for Defendant EUROMARKET DESIGNS, INC. d/b/a CRATE & BARREL 22 23 24 25 PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED. June 6 11 Dated:_____________, 20___ ______________________________________ Laurel Beeler United States Magistrate Judge Northern District of California 26 27 28 W02-WEST:1LDC2\403611830.1 Case No. 4:11-cv-02325-LB -6- STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED ORDER] STAYING PROCEEDINGS