ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS

Re: Dkt. No. 19

JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY, Magistrate Judge.

Janet Menifee sues her employer DoorDash, Inc. ("Defendant" or "DoorDash") alleging various wage-and-hour violations under federal and state law. (Dkt. No. 17.)1 Now before the Court is Defendant's administrative motion to stay this action pending final approval of a class settlement in Marciano v. DoorDash, Inc., No. CGC-18-567869 (S.F. Super. Ct.).2 (Dkt. No. 19.) Plaintiff opposes the motion. (Dkt. No. 21.) After careful consideration of the parties' briefing, the Court DENIES Defendant's motion for the reasons stated below.

The plaintiff in Marciano filed its motion for preliminary approval of a class settlement on November 21, 2019. (Dkt. No. 19 at 2.) There is no dispute that the claims in Marciano overlap with the claims in this action. However, this is an individual action and Plaintiff has submitted a sworn declaration that she has "reviewed the proposed settlement and discussed it with [her] attorneys and do[es] not want to participate in it." (Dkt. No. 21-1 at ¶ 5.) Further, Plaintiff attests that "[i]f the proposed settlement had been granted preliminary approval, [she] would opt out of it." (Id.) Plaintiff attests that one of her "primary goals in this lawsuit is to obtain an injunction requiring DoorDash to pay [her] properly as an employee in the future, [and] the settlement would not require DoorDash to do [that]." (Id. at ¶ 6.) Plaintiff's opposition asserts that the only reason she "has not already opted out of the settlement is that the settlement has not yet been approved." (Dkt. No. 21 at 3.) In other words, Plaintiff will opt out of the settlement if and when it is approved. Because Plaintiff will not participate in the class settlement, the outcome in Marciano has no bearing on this case and Defendant will have to litigate this action regardless.

Accordingly, the Court denies Defendant's administrative motion to stay proceedings.

This Order disposes of Docket No. 19.

IT IS SO ORDERED.