United States District Court, D. Nevada
CAMERON PARK, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs,
ZUFFA, LLC, UFC HOLDINGS, LLC, NEULION, INC., and, DOES 1-100, inclusive, Defendants.
Requested by October 10, 2017
Colby Williams, Esq. Nevada Bar No. 5549 CAMPBELL &
WILLIAMS Attorneys for Defendants ZUFFA, LLC and UFC
UNOPPOSED MOTION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS PENDING A
TRANSFER DECISION BY THE JUDICIAL PANEL ON MULTIDISTRICT
Zuffa, LLC ("Zuffa") and UFC Holdings, LLC
("UFC, " and, collectively,
"Defendants"), through their attorneys of record,
respectfully request that this Court, for good cause, stay
all proceedings in this case pending a decision by the
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ("JPML")
on the motion, filed on October 3, 2017, under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1407, to centralize this and other similar lawsuits
filed in federal district courts across the country (the
"Actions") for coordinated pretrial proceedings.
Specifically, Defendants request the following Order:
1. Defendants' time to answer, move or otherwise respond
to Plaintiff s Complaint is hereby extended pending a ruling
by the JPML. If the JPML coordinates or consolidates the
Actions in this Court, or if it denies centralization, the
parties shall contact the Court promptly after receipt of
that Order to discuss an appropriate schedule for filing a
consolidated or amended complaint, if applicable, and a
response date to the operative complaint.
2. By submission of this motion, Defendants are not waiving
and expressly reserve any defense, including for failure to
state a claim.
absence of a stay, Defendants are due to respond to the
Complaint by October 10, 2017. Counsel for
Plaintiff do not oppose the requested stay.
OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
action is one of at least eight lawsuits (the
"Actions") pending in multiple United States District
Courts across the country alleging violations of state
consumer protection laws, among other claims, in connection
with the streaming broadcast of the boxing match between
Floyd Mayweather and Conor McGregor on August 26, 2017.
Zuffa, doing business as the Ultimate Fighting Championship
(or "UFC") is a defendant in five of the Actions,
including this one and another case in this Court (in which
the parties are seeking an identical order)-Riley v.
Zuffa, LLC, No. 2:17-cv-2308-APG-GWF. In light of the
substantial similarities in the allegations and claims in all
of the Actions, defendants in the Actions, including Zuffa in
a motion filed on October 3, 2017 have requested that the
JPML centralize all the cases before a single judge for
coordinated pretrial proceedings pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1407 (the "MDL Motion").
the strong likelihood that the Actions will be transferred by
the JPML to a single court for pretrial purposes, judicial
economy favors a stay and coordination of the Actions. All
parties will be unnecessarily burdened if forced to litigate
the case actively only to have it transferred and
consolidated with other cases for further proceedings. In
addition, any action by this Court prior to such transfer
would be wasteful of the Court's judicial resources and
would create the possibility of inconsistencies in the
adjudication of the other Actions. Accordingly, this Court
should grant the requested stay pending ruling on the MDL
the Multidistrict Litigation Act, "[w]hen civil actions
involving one or more common questions of fact are pending in
different districts, such actions may be transferred to any
district for coordinated and consolidated pretrial
proceedings." 28 U.S.C. § 1407(a). Although an
action is not automatically stayed upon the filing of an MDL
Motion, the Court may, in its discretion, grant a stay when
it serves the interests of judicial economy and efficiency.
It is well-established that a district court has the inherent
power to stay proceedings in its own court. Pate v. DePuy
Orthopaedics, Inc., No. 2:12-CV-01168-MMD-CWH, 2012 WL
3532780, at *2-3 (D. Nev. Aug. 14, 2012), (citingLandis
v. North American Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254-55 (1936) and
granting motion to stay proceedings pending MDL transfer
specific context of a case awaiting potential transfer by the
JPML, "a majority of courts have concluded that it is
often appropriate to stay preliminary pretrial proceedings
while a motion to consolidate and transfer is pending with
the MDL Panel because of the judicial resources that are
conserved." Rivers v. Walt Disney Co., 980
F.Supp. 1358, 1362 (CD. Cal. 1997); Esquivelv. BP Co.
North Am., No. B-10-236, No. B-10-227, No. B-10-237,
2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 110015, at *10 (S.D. Tex. Oct. 14,
2010) ("The JPML's guidance concerning the use of
stay orders repeatedly stresses that '[a] stay of
proceedings concerning questions common to all cases, such as
class representation, may be appropriate to preserve the
question for the transferee judge and avoid inconsistent
rulings.'"). Indeed, case law is replete with
decisions where district courts have stayed preliminary
proceedings while awaiting decision from the JPML. See,
e.g., Oregon, ex rel. Kroger v. Johnson & Johnson,
No. 11-CV-86-AC, 2011 WL 1347069, at *7 (D. Or. Apr. 8, 2011)
(granting stay pending transfer to the MDL when "the
interest of judicial economy and consistency far outweigh any
possible harm to Plaintiff resulting from a brief
stay"); Vermurlen v. AmeriquestMortgage Co.,
No. 1:06-CV-828, 2007 WL 3104339, at *1 (W.D. Mich. Oct. 22,
2007) (granting stay pending transfer to MDL "in the
interest of judicial economy and efficiency"); Bute
v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Kansas City, Inc.,
No. 05-0534-CV-W-FJG, 2005 WL 2218461, at *1 (W.D. Mo. 2005)
(granting stay pending transfer to MDL "in order to
avoid duplicative proceedings" where "defendants
will be forced to simultaneously litigate the same
issues" and the "potential prejudice to plaintiffs
is minimal, especially considering that plaintiffs'
counsel will be arguing substantially the same issues").
considering a motion to stay proceedings pending a possible
transfer to an MDL court, a district court may consider
factors such as any potential prejudice to the non-moving
party, hardship or inequity to the moving party if the
proceedings are not stayed, and the interests of judicial
economy and efficiency." Mangani v. Merck &
Co., No. 2:06-CV-00914-KJD-PAL, 2006 WL 2707459, at *1
(D. Nev. Sept. 19, 2006) (citingRivers, 980 F.Supp.
at 1360). In this case, consideration ...