1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 SAN JOSE DIVISION 6 7 HENRY THANG, Case No. 21-cv-06473-BLF

8 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 9 v. STAY

10 T-MOBILE US, INC., [Re: ECF No. 21] 11 Defendant.

12 13 Before the Court is Defendant T-Mobile US, Inc.’s motion to stay this action pending the 14 decision of the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (“JPML”) on a motion to transfer under 15

in In re T-Mobile Customer Data Sec. Breach Litig., MDL No. 2019 (J.P.M.L. 16 Aug. 23, 2021). ECF No. 21 (“Motion”). Plaintiff opposes the Motion. ECF No. 30 (“Opp.”). 17 The Court finds this matter suitable for disposition without oral argument and VACATES the 18 March 3, 2022 hearing. Civil L.R. 7-1(b). For the reasons discussed below, the Court GRANTS 19 the motion. 20 “Granting a motion to stay is within the sound discretion of the Court.” Fuller v. Amerigas 21 Propane, Inc.,

, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 3, 2009). The power to stay is 22 “incidental to the power inherent in every court to control the disposition of the causes on its 23 docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants.”

(quoting 24 Rivers v. Walt Disney Co.,

(C.D. Cal. 1997) (quoting Landis v. N. Am. 25 Co.,

(1936) (internal quotation marks omitted))). 26 “In considering whether a stay is appropriate, the Court weighs three factors: [1] the 27 possible damage which may result from the granting of a stay, [2] the hardship or inequity which a 1 terms of the simplifying or complicating of issues, proof, and questions of law which could be 2 expected to result from a stay.” See Gustavson v. Mars, Inc.,

, at *2 (N.D. Cal. 3 Dec. 10, 2014). These factors are drawn from the Supreme Court’s decision in Landis v. North 4 American Co.,

(1936).

5 The first factor considers the possible damage which may result from the stay. Plaintiff 6 first argues that he will suffer prejudice from a stay because he and other putative class members 7 remain at risk of having their personal information compromised by another bad actor. Opp. at 7- 8 8. But Plaintiff offers no evidence that his data remains at risk from the data breach, and the Court 9 cannot find prejudice from mere speculation. Plaintiff also argues that the JPML is unlikely to 10 rule on the pending motion to transfer until next year, resulting in additional prejudice.

But as 11 T-Mobile points out, the JPML frequently adjudicates motions to transfer only days after oral 12 argument. See, e.g., In re Blackbaud, Inc. Customer Data Sec. Breach Litig.,

1362 (J.P.M.L. 2020) (creating MDL twelve days after hearing). With oral argument scheduled 14 for December 2, 2021, the JPML is likely to rule before the end of the year or at the beginning of 15 January. A stay of that length is minimal and will not prejudice Plaintiff. This factor favors a 16 stay. 17 With respect to the second factor, the Court finds that the Parties will suffer prejudice 18 having to go forward at this juncture. Both Parties would begin litigating pre-trial issues and enter 19 discovery, resulting in a potential waste of their resources if the JPML then transfers all the cases 20 to a single forum. This prejudice would be particularly stark for T-Mobile, who would be forced 21 to litigate the same issues and claims in multiple forums prior to any action by the JPML. 22 Plaintiff’s argument that T-Mobile will eventually be required to undertake this work (Opp. at 5-6) 23 is unconvincing. If the JPML transfers this and other actions to a different forum, T-Mobile 24 would have to proceed according to the rules and rulings of the MDL court, which could differ 25 from those here. This factor thus also weighs in favor of a stay. 26 Finally, the Court finds that a stay will serve the orderly course of justice. T-Mobile is 27 correct that it would not be efficient for this Court to take up pre-trial issues and make rulings 1 at 6-7. And again, if this action is transferred elsewhere, it would be more efficient to allow the 2 || MDL court to make rulings that apply to all the transferred cases, without any potential for 3 conflict with pre-trial rulings issued by courts that previously held the individual cases. This 4 || factor favors a stay. 5 Because all three factors favor a stay, the Court will grant T-Mobile’s Motion. As T- 6 || Mobile notes, stays have been entered in many of the other related cases it faces, including two 7 before this Court. ECF No. 39 at 2 (19 stays entered by 6 different courts); see also Avrech y. T- 8 || Mobile USA, Inc., No. 21-cv-6660-BLFE (stay by stipulation); Lang v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., No. 21- 9 || cv-6879-BLF (same).! 10 For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that T-Mobile’s motion to stay is 11 GRANTED. The Parties SHALL file a joint status report within 10 days of the JPML’s decision 12 || on the pending motion to transfer.

|) Dated: October 29, 2021 han 2 BETH LABSON FREEMAN 16 United States District Judge

19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ' T-Mobile has filed a motion to stay in the third related case before this Court. Shanmukh v. T- Mobile USA, Inc., No. 21-cv-6473-BLF. Plaintiff has not yet responded to that motion.