United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Seattle
ROBERT DOMSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs,
BEHR PROCESS CORP., BEHR PAINT CORP., MASCO CORP., THE HOME DEPOT, INC., and HOME DEPOT U.S.A., INC., Defendants.
MARCHBANKS, WSBA NO. 48064 ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF ROBERT
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.
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.
& WATKINS LLP KATHLEEN P. LALLY ONE OF THE ATTORNEYS FOR
DEFENDANT BEHR PROCESS CORPORATION MARK S. MESTER
STIPULATED MOTION AND ORDER TO STAY CASE
Marsha J. Pechman, United States Senior District Court Judge
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.))
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.
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.
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).
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).
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