Filed September 22, 2016
Lyft’s authority is distinguishable because those cases involved “identical” claims. In re JPMorgan Chase LPI Hazard Litig., No. 11 Civ. 03058 JCS, 2013 WL 3829271, at *3-4 (N.D. Cal. July 23, 2013) (discussing Jaffe v. Morgan Stanley DW, Inc., No. 06 Civ. 3903 THE, 2007 WL 163196, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 19, 2007)). Here, because the claims and time periods are different, no stay would be appropriate.
Filed September 1, 2016
Indeed, some courts stay overlapping class actions even before preliminary approval is granted, when settlement discussions in one action reach a sufficiently advanced state. See, e.g., In re JPMorgan Chase LPI Hazard Litig., No. 11-03058, 2013 WL 3829271, at *5 (N.D. Cal. July 23, 2013); Jaffe v. Morgan Stanley DW, Inc., No. 06-3903, 2007 WL 163196, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 19, 2007). This Court has inherent power to stay its proceedings to serve the interests of efficiency and fairness.
Filed December 31, 2013
This Court should, accordingly, follow the many decisions from this District that enter a stay when there is a settlement pending in another class action that will impact the case before the court. See, e.g., In re JPMorgan Chase LPI Hazard Litig., No. C-11-03058, 2013 WL 3829271, at *1 (N.D. Cal. July 23, 2013); Jaffe v. Morgan Stanley DW, Inc., No. C06-3903, 2007 WL 163196, at *1 1 “Plaintiffs” as used herein refers to the named Plaintiffs in Browning, Hansel, Blaqmoor, and Gandhi.
Filed February 7, 2014
As is the practice of this and other federal courts, when a class action settlement is pending approval in another court that will resolve the class action claims pending before this Court, the Court may enter an order staying all proceedings to facilitate and help advance the settlement approval process in the other court and avoid the waste of party or judicial resources. See, e.g., In re: JPMorgan Chase LPI Hazard Litig., No. C-11-03058, 2013 WL 3829271, at *5 (N.D. Cal. July 23, 2013) (granting stay pending resolution of anticipated settlement in another LPI class action because “[a] stay will allow both parties to conserve resources should a settlement in Case 3:12-cv-01376-EMC Document 174 Filed 02/07/14 Page 2 of 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO STAY PENDING SETTLEMENT PROCEEDINGS IN RELATED ACTION; MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF MOTION; C12-1376-EMC [the other action] be finalized.”); Jaffe v. Morgan Stanley DW,Inc., No.