Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Domson v. Behr Process Corp.

United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Seattle

June 4, 2018

ROBERT DOMSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs,
v.
BEHR PROCESS CORP., BEHR PAINT CORP., MASCO CORP., THE HOME DEPOT, INC., and HOME DEPOT U.S.A., INC., Defendants.

          ELI T. MARCHBANKS, WSBA NO. 48064 ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF ROBERT DOMSON

          CARYN GERAGHTY JORGENSEN WSBA NO. 27514, JOHN FETTERS WSBA NO. 40800, MILLS MEYERS SWARTLING ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS HOME DEPOT, INC. AND HOME DEPOT U.S.A., INC.

          MORRIS MANNING & MARTIN, JEFFREY DOUGLASS, PRO HAC VICE ROBERT ALPERT, PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS HOME DEPOT, INC. AND HOME DEPOT U.S.A., INC.

          LATHAM & WATKINS LLP KATHLEEN P. LALLY ONE OF THE ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT BEHR PROCESS CORPORATION MARK S. MESTER

          STIPULATED MOTION AND ORDER TO STAY CASE

          Hon. Marsha J. Pechman, United States Senior District Court Judge

         I. STIPULATION

         Subject to approval of this Court, Plaintiff Robert Domson and Defendants Behr Paint Corp., Behr Process Corporation, Masco Corporation (collectively, “Behr”), The Home Depot, Inc. and Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. (collectively, “Home Depot”), by and through their attorneys, hereby stipulate and request an order staying this case, including all deadlines for discovery and other matters, pending a decision on the motion for preliminary and final approval of a class action settlement involving three related actions before other district courts (Anderson v. Behr Process Corp., No. 1:17-cv-08735 (N.D. Ill.); Bishop v. Behr Process Corp., No. 1:17-cv-04464 (N.D. Ill.); and In re Behr, No. 8:17-cv-01016 (CD. Cal.)) (“Settled Cases”).

         II. BACKGROUND

         On May 1, 2018, plaintiffs in Bishop filed an amended complaint that incorporated the named plaintiffs in In re Behr and Anderson. See Am. Compl. (Bishop Dkt. #60) at ¶¶ 7-39. Shortly thereafter, on May 3, 2018, plaintiffs in Bishop filed a motion for preliminary approval of a class action settlement. See Mot. for Preliminary Approval (Bishop Dkt. #61) at passim.

         Behr has represented that if the settlement agreement in Bishop is granted preliminarily approval, it would resolve all claims against all Defendants in this action. See Behr Mem. in Opp. to Mot. for Transfer and Consolidation, In re: Behr DeckOver Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation, MDL No. 2821 (Dkt. #30) at 1-2; Order Denying Transfer (MDL Dkt. #53) at 1.

         On May 14, 2018, Plaintiff filed a motion to intervene in Bishop. See Plaintiff-Intervenor Robert Domson Motion to Intervene (Bishop Dkt. #73). The parties are briefing the motion to intervene and Judge Blakey has indicated that he will hear both the motion to intervene and the motion for preliminary approval on June 27, 2018. See Minute Order (Bishop Dkt. #78).

         III. AUTHORITY

         The 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.” Levya v. Certified Grocers of California, 593 F.2d 857, 863 (9th Cir. 1979). In considering whether a stay is appropriate, a district court should consider (1) the possible damage that may result from granting a stay, (2) the hardship or inequity a party may suffer in being required to go forward, and (3) the orderly course of justice measured in terms of the simplifying or complicating of issues, proof, and questions of law expected to result from a stay. See Id. at 864; CMAX, Inc. v. Hall, 300 F.2d 265, 268 (9th Cir. 1962).

         Courts in the Ninth Circuit and across the country routinely stay actions pending the review and approval of class settlements in other district courts that would resolve all claims brought in those actions. See Annunziato v. eMachines Inc., 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 97020, *15-16 (C.D. Cal. 2006); see also Albert v. Blue Diamond Growers, 232 F.Supp.3d 509 (S.D.N.Y. 2017); Ali v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26670, *7-9 (W.D.Okla. 2014); Lindley v. Life Investors Ins. Co. of America, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 94623, *11 (N.D.Okla. 2009); In re RC2 Corp. Toy Lead Paint Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 1893, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14121, *13-14 (N.D.Ill. 2008). If this case is stayed pending consideration of the Bishop Settlement, no Party will suffer any hardship. Plaintiff and all members of the proposed class in this case have the right to participate in the ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.