The 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