ORDER AND REASONS

IVAN L.R. LEMELLE, District Judge.

Before the Court is Defendant's, GlaxoSmithKline LLC ("GSK"), Motion to Stay (Rec. Doc. 8), as well as the Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Stay filed by Plaintiff, Alexis Alexander, individually and as parent and natural guardian of N.A., a minor (Rec. Doc. 11). Additionally, Defendant has filed its Reply in Support of the Motion to Stay (Rec. Doc. 14). For the reasons that follow, it is ORDERED that Defendant's Motion is GRANTED.

LAW AND ANALYSIS

"[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." Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936). "[T]he suppliant for a stay must make out a clear case of hardship or inequity in being required to go forward, if there is even a fair possibility that the stay for which he prays will work damage to some one [sic] else." Id. at 255. Nonetheless, these considerations "are counsels of moderation rather than limitations upon power." Id.

When there is a pendency of a motion to transfer before the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML), the district court is not divested of jurisdiction over the case. J.P.M.L. R. Proc. 1.5.; Cajun Offshore Charters, LLC v. BP Products N. Am., Inc., No. CV-10-1341, 2010 WL 2160292, at *1 (E.D. La. May 25, 2010).1 However, "[c]ourts frequently grant stays in cases when an MDL decision is pending." Cajun Offshore Charters, 2010 WL 2160292, at *2. When determining whether to grant a motion to stay pending assessment by the JPML, "[t]he district court should consider three factors: (1) the potential prejudice to the non-moving party; (2) the hardship and inequity to the moving party if the action is not stayed; and (3) the judicial resources that would be saved by avoiding duplicative litigation if the cases are in fact consolidated." Id. at *1 (citing La. Stadium & Exposition Dist. v. Fin. Guar. Ins. Co., No. CV-09-235, 2009 WL 926982, at * 1 (E.D. La. Apr. 2, 2009)).

Here, this Court finds that the hardship and inequity to the non-moving party is minimal. "District courts have granted motions to stay after finding that the plaintiff would not be prejudiced by a slight delay." Cajun Offshore Charters, 2010 WL 2160292, at *2 (citing Falgoust v. Microsoft Corp., No. CV-00-779, 2000 WL 462919, at *2 (E.D. La. Apr. 19, 2000)).2 As the JPML is anticipated to consider the motion to transfer on October 1, 2015,3 a time period of just sixteen days, this Court finds that there is no prejudice to the Plaintiff in granting the Motion to Stay.

This Court furthermore finds that the hardship and inequity to the Defendant, as well as the potential for judicial inefficiency, far outweigh the burdens that a slight delay presents to the Plaintiff. With at least thirty-three lawsuits in different federal courts across the country,4 "the defendants face the burden of litigating in multiple jurisdictions." Cajun Offshore Charters, 2010 WL 2160292, at *2. "More importantly, between the various lawyers and judges on the cases, there is a grave potential for conflicting discovery orders. This poses not only a hardship for the defendants, but mocks an efficient and orderly judicial system." Id. As such, a stay is the appropriate action for this Court to take. Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that Defendant's Motion to Stay is hereby GRANTED, for the reasons set forth above.