Fitzgerald v. Pollard
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Jeffrey T. Miller (author)
Analysis
The court considered the impact of a pending Rule 23(f) petition for permission to appeal a class certification order. The court ordered a stay of all motions and discovery related to class certification and the issuance of class notices.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Stay of motions and discovery regarding class certification and class notice“the court finds that it would be in the interests of judicial economy, all Parties involved, and the public, to STAY the filing any motions or discovery pertaining to the question of class certification or the issuance of the class notice.” | agree with court The court correctly identified that a Rule 23(f) petition does not automatically stay proceedings, but it has the discretion to stay them to prevent waste and confusion. The cited cases support the proposition that staying certification-related work during a 23(f) petition is a standard and appropriate exercise of judicial economy. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It correctly notes that Rule 23(f) does not provide an automatic stay, but the court properly exercises its inherent authority to manage its docket to prevent the waste of resources (issuing notices that might be invalidated) and to avoid confusing class members with conflicting notices. The cited district court cases are persuasive and on point for this specific procedural posture.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 RHONDA FITZGERALD, an individual, Case No.: 20cv848 JM(NLS) and on behalf of all persons similarly 11 situated, ORDER STAYING MOTIONS OR 12 DISCOVERY ON QUESTION OF Plaintiff, CLASS CERTIFICATION 13 v. 14 MARCUS POLLARD et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 In light of the Defendant’s pending Rule 23(f) petition to the Ninth Circuit Court of 18 Appeals, the court finds that it would be in the interests of judicial economy, all Parties 19 involved, and the public, to STAY the filing any motions or discovery pertaining to the 20 question of class certification or the issuance of the class notice. The stay will not only 21 avoid the costs associated with dissemination of the notice, but it will also avoid the risk 22 of confusing putative class members should they receive two conflicting class notices. See 23 e.g., Brown v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., No. 5:09-CV-03339-EJD, 2012 WL 5818300, at *4- 24 5 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 15, 2012); In re Apple & ATTM Antitrust Litig. No. C 07-05152 JW, 25 2010 WL 11489069, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 15, 2020). See also Fed. R. Civ. P 23(f) (“An 26 appeal [under Rule 23(f)] does not stay proceedings in the district court unless the district 27 judge or the court of appeals so orders.”). 28 1 In the meantime, the Parties may continue to litigate Plaintiff's individual claims, 2 thereby mitigating any possible prejudice the temporary stay may cause. 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 4 || Dated: March 24, 2023 ; —\/)r 6 nf! Feffrey/ff. Miller 2 Hb States District Judge 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28