Filed: Jan. 11, 2019
Latest Update: Jan. 11, 2019
Summary: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ROANNE L. MANN , Chief Magistrate Judge . The Court has reviewed defendants' motion to stay and sever the claims of the more than 50 newly added individual plaintiffs, see Letter-Motion to Stay or Sever (Dec. 19, 2018) ("Def. Motion"), Electronic Case Filing Docket Entry ("DE") #30, and plaintiffs opposition thereto, see Response in Opposition (Jan. 2, 2019) ("Pl. Opp."), DE #32. 1 As plaintiffs correctly observe, see Pl. Opp. at 3-4, defendants articulate no le
Summary: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ROANNE L. MANN , Chief Magistrate Judge . The Court has reviewed defendants' motion to stay and sever the claims of the more than 50 newly added individual plaintiffs, see Letter-Motion to Stay or Sever (Dec. 19, 2018) ("Def. Motion"), Electronic Case Filing Docket Entry ("DE") #30, and plaintiffs opposition thereto, see Response in Opposition (Jan. 2, 2019) ("Pl. Opp."), DE #32. 1 As plaintiffs correctly observe, see Pl. Opp. at 3-4, defendants articulate no leg..
More
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
ROANNE L. MANN, Chief Magistrate Judge.
The Court has reviewed defendants' motion to stay and sever the claims of the more than 50 newly added individual plaintiffs, see Letter-Motion to Stay or Sever (Dec. 19, 2018) ("Def. Motion"), Electronic Case Filing Docket Entry ("DE") #30, and plaintiffs opposition thereto, see Response in Opposition (Jan. 2, 2019) ("Pl. Opp."), DE #32.1 As plaintiffs correctly observe, see Pl. Opp. at 3-4, defendants articulate no legal basis for finding misjoinder and ordering a severance of the new claims under Rule 21 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, see generally Def. Motion. As for defendants' request that those claims be stayed "until resolution of the class claims," see id. at 3, plaintiffs persuasively counter that a decision on a yet-to-be-filed class certification motion will not resolve the merits of or otherwise render moot any of the new claims, see Pl. Opp. at 2.
In seeking to invoke the Court's broad discretion to stay litigation of the new claims (which were timely added2), defendants bear the burden to establish "a clear case of hardship or inequity in being required to go forward." Trikona Advisors Ltd. v. Kai-Lin Chuang, No. 12-CV-3886, 2013 WL 1182960, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 20, 2013) (quoting Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 255 (1936)). Having considered the factors that inform its exercise of discretion,3 this Court concludes that a blanket stay is not warranted. The newly added plaintiffs have a strong interest in expeditiously prosecuting their individual claims, whatever the outcome of any future motion to certify a class. The resulting burden on defendants — and the Court — can be mitigated by limiting discovery relating to the newly added plaintiffs. To avoid any unfair prejudice to defendants, the Court, upon request, would be inclined to adjust the discovery schedule on account of the new claims. The parties are directed to confer in good faith in an effort to agree upon a protocol to streamline discovery relating to the new plaintiffs.
For the foregoing reasons, defendants' motion to stay and sever the new claims is denied.
SO ORDERED.
