Roberts-Gooden v. CSI Financial Services, LLC ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 BROOKE ROBERTS-GOODEN, Case No. 21-cv-01352-BAS-BGS 12 Plaintiff, ORDER: 13 v. (1) GRANTING JOINT 14 CSI FINANCIAL SERVICES, LLC, APPLICATION TO STAY 15 Defendant. ACTION (ECF No. 17); AND 16 (2) TERMINATING MOTION TO 17 DISMISS (ECF No. 16) 18 19 20 Before the Court is the parties’ joint application to stay the proceeding. (Mot., ECF 21 No. 17.) Plaintiff Brooke Roberts-Gooden filed this putative class action on July 27, 2021, 22 alleging that Defendant CSI Financial Services, LLC caused Plaintiff and more than 23 200,000 similarly situated persons harm when, in March 2021, cyber criminals infiltrated 24 Defendant’s email accounts and gained access to Plaintiff and putative class members’ 25 confidential personal information and health information. (Compl. ¶¶ 1–2, ECF No. 1.) 26 Plaintiff alleges that the data breach was preventable and the result of Defendant’s 27 inadequate measures to protect the impacted accounts. (Id. ¶ 2.) 28 1 Pursuant to the Court’s Order dated August 25, 2021 (ECF No. 10), Defendant filed 2 its motion to dismiss the Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) 3 (ECF No. 16). Thereafter, Defendant advised Plaintiff that it is also the defendant in two 4 actions in San Diego Superior Court (“State Actions”), which also arise out of the data 5 breach at issue here and involve substantially identical claims. (See Mot. 2.) Accordingly, 6 “in an effort to streamline the actions and coordinate resources,” the parties now jointly 7 move to stay the present action until after final orders are issued in the anticipated motions 8 to dismiss the complaints in the State Actions. (Id.) The parties say that doing so “would 9 promote the interest of judicial economy.” (Id.) 10 “A district court has discretionary power to stay proceedings in its own court.” 11 Lockyer v. Mirant, 398 F.3d 1098, 1109 (9th Cir. 2005) (citing Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 12 U.S. 248, 254 (1936)). “[T]he power to stay proceedings is incidental to the power inherent 13 in every court to control disposition of the cases on its docket with economy of time and 14 effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants.” Landis, 299 U.S. at 254. “A trial court may, 15 with propriety, find it is efficient for its own docket and the fairest course for the parties to 16 enter a stay of an action before it, pending resolution of independent proceedings which 17 bear upon the case.” Leyva v. Certified Grocers of Calif., 593 F.2d 857, 863 (9th Cir. 18 1979). 19 The parties do not identify, nor is it apparent to the Court what damage, hardship, or 20 inequity would result from granting a stay. See Lockyer, 398 F.3d at 1110 (quoting CMAX, 21 Inc. v. Hall, 300 F.2d 265, 268 (9th Cir. 1962). Rather, a stay here conserves judicial 22 resources and streamlines and narrows issues in this case. This case arises out of an alleged 23 data breach which is the subject of other actions by other plaintiffs in state court. The 24 Court agrees with the parties that refusal to grant the requested stay would result in added 25 complexity, increased costs of litigation, and potentially inconsistent judgments. See 26 Rivera v. Garland, No. 21-CV-213-MMA-AGS, 2021 WL 3370831, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 27 3, 2021). Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the joint motion to stay. 28 For the reasons set forth above: 1 1. The Court STAYS this action as to all parties and all claims. 2 2. The Court TERMINATES Defendant’s motion to dismiss (ECF No. 16). 3 The Court will reinstate that motion once the stay is lifted. 4 3. The Court ORDERS the parties to jointly file a notice in this matter every 5 thirty (30) days informing the Court of the status of this case. 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7 A , 8 || DATED: October 15, 2021 Lin A (Lyohaa 6 9 United States District Judge 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28