ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT TRACFONE'S MOTION TO SHORTEN TIME AS MOOT

(Docket No. 68, C-13-3440) (Docket No. 34, C-13-5295) (Docket No. 34, C-13-5296)

EDWARD M. CHEN, District Judge.

Before the Court are three related suits against Tracfone Wireless, Inc. ("Tracfone"): Hansell v. Tracfone (13-cv-3440 EMC), Blaqmoor v. Tracfone (13-cv-5295 EMC), and Gandhi v. Tracfone (13-cv-5296 EMC) (collectively, the "Hansell Cases"). On January 27, 2014, the Court granted a 90-stay (the "Stay") in all three cases pursuant to the parties' stipulation, as a settlement was pending in a similar case, Browning v. Tracfone, in the Southern District of Florida. All four suits are class actions.

On March 19, 2014, Judge Cooke of the Southern District of Florida transferred Browning to this Court. See Browing v. Tracfone, 14-cv-1347 EMC, Docket No. 61. A motion for approval of preliminary settlement had been pending before Judge Cooke, but pursuant to the transfer, Judge Cook denied the motion as "moot."

On March 26, 2014, the plaintiffs in the Hansell Cases ("Plaintiffs") filed a Motion to Consolidate Related Actions and for Appointment of Interim Class Counsel, to consolidate all four cases. Hansell, Docket No. 64. The Motion to Consolidate is scheduled for hearing before the Court on May 22, 2014. On April 1, 2014, Tracfone filed a Motion for a 90-Day Extension of the Stay. Tracfone believes that the 90-day Stay ends April 28, 2014 (April 27 being a Sunday), while Plaintiffs take the position that the Stay automatically ended when Judge Cooke denied the motion for approval of preliminary settlement as "moot," because the parties had stipulated that the Stay would be terminated "[i]f preliminary approval of settlement is denied in Browning." Hansell, Docket No. 58 at 7.

Currently pending before the Court is Tracfone's Motion to Shorten Time on its Motion for a 90-Day Extension of the Stay. Hansell, Docket No. 68. Tracfone argues that the Court should extend the Stay to evaluate the reasonableness of the Browning settlement. The parties do not dispute that the class alleged in Browning would encompass the classes alleged in the Hansell Cases — Browning alleges a nation-wide class, and covers all of the various phone plans alleged in the Hansell Cases. Plaintiffs, on the other hand, argue that the Browning settlement is inadequate and premature, and display the "hallmarks of a `reverse-auction settlement.'" Opposition to Tracfone's Motion to Shorten Time (Hansell, Docket No. 71) at 4. Plaintiffs want discovery to resume immediately.

It makes little sense for the Court to conduct in parallel Browning and the Hansell Cases. The proposed settlement in Browning may end the Hansell Cases, and Plaintiff's Motion to Consolidate is pending, as is Tracfone's Motion to Stay. The Court will hear Tracfone's Motion to Stay together with Plaintiff's Motion to Consolidate on May 22, 2014. Proceedings in the Hansell Cases are stayed until May 22, except for briefing on these motions. Thus, the Court DENIES as moot Tracfone's Motion to Shorten Time. Briefing for the Motion to Stay will follow the usual deadlines: Plaintiffs' response is due April 15, 2014; Tracfone's reply is due April 22, 2014.

This order disposes of Docket No. 68, C-13-3440 and Docket No. 34 in C-13-5295 and C-13-5296.

IT IS SO ORDERED.