Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 11 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 12 13 MICHAEL BELTRAN, Case No.: 26-cv-03217-AJB-MMP 14 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 15 v. MOTION TO STAY CASE PENDING MEDIATION 16 FEDERAL EXPRESS CORPORATION, successor by merger to FedEx Ground 17 (Doc. No. 5) Package System, Inc., 18 Defendant. 19 20 21 Before the Court is Plaintiff Michael Beltran’s unopposed motion to stay the instant 22 action “so that the parties can diligently pursue settlement negotiations.” (Doc. No. 5.) 23 Plaintiff states that “[t]he parties have begun engaging in substantive settlement discussions 24 for this and other cases and have recently agreed to engage in mediation on 25 August 31, 2026.” (Id. at 2.) To that end, Plaintiff seeks to stay this case until at least 26 September 30, 2026. (Id. at 3.) 27 Based on Plaintiff’s previous representations, Plaintiff initially had opted into the 28 conditionally certified collective action Claiborne v. FedEx Ground Package Sys., Inc., 1 No. 2:18-cv-01698 (W.D. Pa.). When that action was voluntarily decertified, Plaintiff filed 2 claims against FedEx in the mass action case of Abner v. Federal Express Corp., s/b/m to 3 FedEx Ground Package Sys., Inc., No. 2:24-cv-01129-RJC (W.D.Pa.).1 (Doc. No. 1 at 1.) 4 On May 18, 2026, the Abner court ordered Plaintiff’s claims severed and directed Plaintiff 5 to refile his individual claims in the appropriate district if he intended to pursue them. (Id.) 6 Despite the initial complaint here being filed on May 22, 2026, the history of this 7 litigation is years long and none of the history is addressed or even acknowledged by 8 Plaintiff’s motion. Such omission when the litigation history between these parties appears 9 to be upwards of eight years considering Claiborne and Abner (or two years considering 10 Abner alone) undermines the sufficiency of Plaintiff’s general statement of settlement 11 negotiation efforts. Weighing the minimal information provided in Plaintiff’s motion 12 against the history of the parties’ litigation, the Court is not convinced that delaying this 13 individual action further would serve the values of efficiency or justice. Moreover, in 14 general, it is this Court’s opinion that the possibility of settlement at private mediation 15 rarely warrants a stay. Mediation, unlike arbitration, is a non-binding method of dispute 16 resolution that seeks to help litigants voluntarily reach their own agreement. See, e.g., Jeld- 17 Wen, Inc. v. Superior Ct., 146 Cal. App. 4th 536, 540 (2007). There is no guarantee— 18 despite the parties’ good intentions—that this action will be resolved by the August 19 Mediation. In the interim, this action will languish on the Court’s docket, discovery may 20 grow stale, and the interests of justice and efficiency will be undermined. 21 /// 22 23 1 Commenced on August 6, 2024, “Abner involve[d] a frankly astounding 11,643 named Plaintiffs[.]” Memorandum Opinion, Abner v. Federal Express Corp., s/b/m to FedEx Ground Package 24 Sys., Inc., No. 2:24-cv-01129-RJC (W.D.Pa. May 18, 2026), Doc. No. 54 at 5. The Abner court “believe[d] 25 that Plaintiffs filed these mass actions as a tactical maneuver around the standard class or collective action procedures, as Plaintiffs . . . acknowledged that they could not maintain their claims as either a collective 26 or class action.” Id. In response to the Abner court’s challenges, the Abner plaintiffs requested their claims be severed and transferred. Id. at 6. The Abner court agreed to sever the claims but found that “[t]he 27 request for the Court to transfer these cases [wa]s neither just nor warranted,” considering that the plaintiffs had “improper[ly]” “filed a nationwide mass actions” and then “sought to shift the burden of the 28 l Accordingly, the Court DENIES without prejudice Plaintiffs motion.” If proof of 2 ||service of the amended complaint is not filed by August 20, 2026, the Court will dismiss 3 || the action without prejudice. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m) (“If a defendant is not served within 4 ||90 days after the complaint is filed, the court—on motion or on its own after notice to the 5 || plaintiff—must dismiss the action without prejudice against that defendant or order that 6 || service be made within a specified time.’’). 7 IT ISSO ORDERED. 8 Dated: July 27, 2026 © g ? Hon. Anthony J.Battaglia 10 United States District Judge 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 || ———————— 24 Plaintiff is cautioned that the motion does not comply with this district’s Civil Local Rules because 25 ||it files a proposed order on the docket. See Elec. Case Filing Admin. Pol’s & Proc. Manual § 2.h (“Registered users SHOULD NOT FILE OR SUBMIT proposed orders within the electronic filing 26 || system.’’) (emphasis in original). As this is the second time the Court has had to address compliance with the Civil Local Rules (see Doc. No. 3 at 1—2), the Court admonishes Plaintiff that future non-compliant 27 fillings will be stricken. See CivLR 5.4.f (“The Court may direct the Clerk to strike from the record any 28 document which fails to comply with the requirements for electronic filing set forth in the Administrative Policies and Procedures Manual.”). YQ