MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING [38] MOTION TO STAY; FINDING MOOT [39] MOTION TO POSTPONE BRIEFING SCHEDULE; and GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART [49] MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE CASES
DAVID NUFFER, District Judge.
Defendant C.R. England, Inc. moved to stay all proceedings in this case.1 Plaintiff William H. Gradie (Gradie) responded in opposition.2 C.R. England replied in support of its motion.3
In the alternative, C.R. England filed a motion to postpone the briefing schedule on the motion for class certification.4 Plaintiff did not respond. C.R. England replied.5
Gradie moved to consolidate cases related to this action.6 C.R. England responded in partial opposition.7 Plaintiffs in one of the related cases responded in opposition.8 Gradie replied.9
For the reasons stated below C.R. England's Motion to Stay is GRANTED and its Motion to Postpone is found MOOT. Gradie's motion to consolidate related cases is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.
BACKGROUND
Three separate cases are affected by these motions. This action (Gradie I) was filed April 20, 2016, in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles.10 It was removed to the United States District Court for the Central District of California, Western Division, on May 20, 2016.11 It was transferred to the Utah Federal District Court on July 8, 2016.12
Milton Harper v. C.R. England, Inc. (Harper)13 was filed February 1, 2016, in the Superior Court of the State of California in and for the County of San Bernardino.14 It was removed to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on August 24, 2016.15 On August 26, 2016, it was transferred to the Utah Federal District Court.16 It was assigned to Judge Benson.
William H. Gradie v. C.R. England (Gradie II)17 was filed in this court on September 29, 2016.18 It was assigned to Judge Jenkins.19
"There is no dispute that [Gradie I and Harper] involve the same subject matter and legal issues."20 In both cases, plaintiffs assert various California wage and hour and misrepresentation claims. On January 9, 2017, Judge Benson issued an order in Harper "(1) confirming certification of class action for settlement purposes; (2) granting final approval of class action settlement; and (3) entering final judgment."21
Gradie II seeks "declaratory judgment that the purported `Class Action/Collective Action and Other Group Proceedings Waivers' set forth at Paragraph 5 of the parties' arbitration agreement . . . is illegal and unenforceable as a matter of law."22
DISCUSSION
The Motion to Stay is granted, rendering the motion to postpone briefing moot.
"[T]he power to stay proceedings is incidental to the power inherent in every court to control the disposition of the causes on its docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants."23
In his Opposition to Motion to Stay Gradie argues:
1. C.R. England is rushing to obtain approval of a collusive, "reverse auction" settlement in Harper;24
2. The competing class actions must be consolidated before a single judge;25
3. The Harper Settlement does not extinguish the class claims in Gradie I;26 and
4. The Harper Settlement is grossly inadequate.27
Gradie's first and fourth arguments amount to a collateral attack on the Harper settlement. Gradie had an opportunity and venue to make those arguments.28 He cannot make them again in this action. The second argument is addressed below. The third argument is better addressed in future discussion of his motion to certify the class.
Therefore, C.R. England's motion to stay is granted.
The Motion to Consolidate is granted in part and denied in part.
Rule 42(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure states that "[i]f actions before the court involve a common question of law or fact, the court may . . . consolidate the actions." Actions should only be consolidated if it will avoid unnecessary costs, save judicial resources and efficiency, and will not prejudice the parties.29
C.R. England does not oppose consolidating Gradie II with this case, Gradie I.30 Therefore, because the parties stipulate to consolidation and because Gradie I and Gradie II involve common questions of law and fact, Gradie II will be consolidated with this case.
C.R. England does, however, oppose consolidating Gradie I with Harper. In Harper, Judge Benson already entered final judgment and approval of the class and class action settlement.31 By contrast, the motion to certify the class in this case, Gradie I,32 is not yet fully briefed. Therefore, because consolidation would substantially prejudice the parties in Harper, would not reduce unnecessary costs, and would not save judicial resources, this case and Harper will not be consolidated.
ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion of Defendant C.R. England, Inc. to Stay All Proceedings in this Case33 is GRANTED. The stay shall be in place until Harper becomes completely final, i.e. all appellate rights have been exhausted. Within seven days after Harper becomes completely final, Gradie shall re-file his Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification34 accounting for the developments in Harper. Following Gradie's re-filing, briefing shall proceed according to DUCivR 7-1.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Plaintiff William H. Gradie's Motion to Consolidate Related Cases35 is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. William H. Gradie v. C.R. England36 is consolidated with this case, William H. Gradie v. C.R. England, Inc.37 Milton Harper et al. v. C.R. England, Inc. et al.38 will not be consolidated with this case.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the consolidated cases shall be administratively closed pending the re-filing of Gradie's motion for class certification.
