The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
CHARLOTTE DIVISION
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:19-CV-00449-KDB-DCK
JOHNATHAN HATCH,
Plaintiff,
v. ORDER
LEXISNEXIS RISK SOLUTIONS,
INC.; POLICEREPORTS.US,
LLC; LEXISNEXIS COPLOGIC
SOLUTIONS, INC.; AND
LEXISNEXIS CLAIMS
SOLUTIONS, INC.,
Defendants.
THIS MATTER is before the Court on Defendants’ Motion to Stay Case Pending Appeal
of Related Action (Doc. No. 71). The Court has carefully considered this motion and the parties’
briefs in support of and in opposition to the motion. For the reasons briefly discussed below, the
Court will exercise its discretion to stay this action pending the appeal of the Court’s Order on
class certification and summary judgment in Gaston v. LexisNexis Risk Solutions, et al.; Case
Number 5:16-cv-00009, a case which effectively raises the same issues presented in this action.
In a recent ruling, the Court explained that (1) in Gaston the Court certified a class under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2) and denied certification of the Gastons’ proposed classes
under Rule 23(b)(1) and 23(b)(3); (2) the classes proposed in this case are generally the same as,
or subsumed in, the proposed classes in Gaston; and (3) Hatch is already a member of the certified
Subclass in Gaston, which has been awarded injunctive relief. See Doc. No. 70. In the wake of the
filing of appeals from the Court’s decisions in Gaston (now by both the Plaintiffs and Defendants),
Defendants ask the Court to stay this action pending those appeals. In support of that request,
Defendants argue that the appeals in Gaston may be dispositive of both cases so a stay is
appropriate to save time, effort and expense for the Parties and the Court. In opposition, while
Plaintiff agrees that motion practice regarding class certification and dispositive motions should
be stayed, he asks that discovery be allowed to continue so that he can “establish class-wide
liability” and preserve evidence that may be lost pending appeal.
A District Court has broad discretion to stay proceedings as an incident to its power to
control its own docket. See, e.g., Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 706–07 (1997) (citing Landis v.
North American Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936)). And, the exercise of that discretion is particularly
warranted when the same or very similar proceedings are pending in the same court and the
resolution of the claims and issues in one case will, at a minimum, significantly impact the other
case. See, e.g., Brown-Thomas v. Hynie, No. 1:18-cv-2191, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 34559, at *10
(D.S.C. Mar. 5, 2019) (quoting Leyva v. Certified Grocers of Cal., Ltd., 593 F. 2d 857, 863– 64
(9th Cir. 1979)) (“‘A trial court may, with propriety, find it is efficient for its own docket and the
fairest course for the parties to enter a stay of an action before it, pending resolution of independent
proceedings which bear upon the case.’”); Actelion Pharms. Ltd. v. Lee, No. 1:15-cv-1266, 2016
U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5574, at *12–13 (E.D. Va. Jan. 13, 2016) (granting stay, finding that “[t]he two
cases are very similar and present almost identical legal questions”). Such are the circumstances
here.
As discussed above, this action presents, in nearly all respects, the same claims and issues
presented in the Gaston case, which was filed years earlier and has now proceeded to final
judgment on nearly all of the plaintiffs’ claims. In effect, Plaintiff asks the Court to allow him to
move forward with discovery in this action because he believes he can present a better case than
the plaintiffs in Gaston on the same claims. However, whether or not that may ultimately be true
(and that assertion is hotly contested by the Gaston plaintiffs), the Court finds that it would be
most efficient for all involved to stay this action pending the decision of the Court of Appeals in
Gaston, which will determine whether and under what circumstances the claims in this action need
to go forward.!
Further, as to Plaintiff's unspecified concern that evidence may be lost during a stay
pending the Gaston appeals, Plaintiff can, as Defendants suggest, move forward with subpoenas
for third party evidence. Also, if there are specific circumstances that necessitate a partial lifting
of the stay, Plaintiff can return to Court to seek that relief based on a particularized showing of
good cause. In sum, the Court finds that it should exercise its discretion to stay this action pending
the conclusion of the appeals in Gaston.
NOW THEREFORE IT IS ORDERED THAT:
1. Defendants’ Motion to Stay (Doc. No. 71) is GRANTED; and
2. This case is hereby stayed pending the conclusion of the appeals of the Court’s
class certification and summary judgment rulings in Gaston v. LexisNexis Risk
Solutions, et al.; Case Number 5:16-cv-00009.
SO ORDERED ADJUDGED AND DECREED.
Signed: October 1, 2020
Kenneth D. Bell Cy,
United States District Judge i f
' For example, if the Court of Appeals finds that a Rule 23 (b)(3) class should have been certified
in Gaston then the Plaintiff in this case will be a member of that class and it will be unnecessary
for this case to proceed as either an individual or class action.